Liability not dependant on fault (Criminal Law) (2)
- Created by: Elliiphant
- Created on: 01-06-15 18:33
View mindmap
- Liability not dependant on fault in Criminal Law
- Strict Liability: The aim of this is to regulate behaviour and not allocate blame.
- Whilst in Sweet v Parslet it was found the the defendant was not criminally at fault. In other cases like Shah and Shah, the shopkeepers were to blame as a member of their staff sold a lottery ticket to a under 16 (they were told to ask for ID)
- This shows that liability may not always depend on whether someone is morally to blame for their actions
- The public often question cases like this because from an outsiders point of view it is unfair to punish the shop keepers when it was actually a member of their staffs fault.
- Whilst in Sweet v Parslet it was found the the defendant was not criminally at fault. In other cases like Shah and Shah, the shopkeepers were to blame as a member of their staff sold a lottery ticket to a under 16 (they were told to ask for ID)
- The non-fatal offences s.20 and s.47 of the OAPA 1861 do not require the defendant to have foreseen or been reckless as to the harm caused, they only have to have foreseen the risk of some harm (s.20) or risk of common assault/ common battery
- This means that even though you have a lower level of harm you are still being convicted of a more serious offence
- Fault must act in the best interests of the public. So the victim would want to see the defendant being punished for the harm caused, and the intentions behind them.
- Strict Liability: The aim of this is to regulate behaviour and not allocate blame.
Comments
No comments have yet been made