No 'Due Diligence' Defence
- Created by: claris.x
- Created on: 17-01-18 08:39
View mindmap
- Due Diligence
- It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences.
- There doesn't seem to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a 'due diligence' defence.
- For some offences the statute provides a defence of 'due diligence' which is where the defendant will not be liable if he can show that he did all within his power not to commit the offence.
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) - a butcher asked a vet to examine an animal's carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet assured it was okay to eat and the butcher put it up for sale. He was later convicted under the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale, as it was unfit to eat. Because the butcher did not have a 'due diligence' defence, and because the crime was of strict liability, he was convicted, even though he took all reasonable steps to not commit the offence.
- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) - the defendants owned a newsagents business where they sold lottery tickets. They had told their staff not to sell lottery tickets to anyone under the age of 16 and frequently reminded their staff to check for proof of their age if they're unsure or go to them. One staff member sold a lottery ticket to a 13-year-old boy, the defendants being either away from the premises or in another room. The defendants were charged under the Lottery Act 1998 for selling a ticket to an underage person, even they took all necessary steps to prevent this. If the defendants were allowed a 'due diligence' defence, they would not have been charged.
- Due diligence is where the defendant has done all within his power to not commit an offence
Comments
No comments have yet been made