Strict, Vicarious & Corporate Liability

Question 1

strict liability

Answer 1

• do not require proof of fault
• offences which do not require proof of mens rea in respect of at least one element of the actus reus

Question 2

absolute liability

Answer 2

• form of strict liability

Question 3

guidelines per Lord Reid as stated in Sweet v Parsley (1970) AC 132

Answer 3

• when a section is silent as to the mens rea
• the fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea
• in the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be a strict liability offence
• if the provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations

Question 4

truly criminal offences

Answer 4

• less likely to be strict liability
• more likely to require proof of mens rea
• e.g., offences against children / sexual offencesr

Question 5

regulatory offences

Answer 5

• more likely to be strict liability
• less likely to require proof of mens rea
• e.g., driving offences / pollution / offences of sale / health and safety offences

Question 6

arguments for strict liability

Answer 6

• protection of the public
• easier to prove

Question 7

arguments against strict liability

Answer 7

• violation of ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ criminal liability generally requires proof of both an actus reus and a mens rea

Question 8

vicarious liability

Answer 8

• generally, a person may only be held liable for their own acts, but VL is an exception to this
• VL imposes liability on the defendant for the acts or omissions of another person
• prevalent in the law of tort - employers can be held liable for any torts committed by their employees in the course of their employment
• however, although the concept of VL applies in civil law, it does not usually extend to criminal law