Should it or shouldn't it? (Fault) (5)
- Created by: Elliiphant
- Created on: 01-06-15 21:16
View mindmap
- Liability shouldn't depend on fault
- If the reason for fault is to 'uphold and re-enforce the values of society' then why is it that sometimes no fault is required to protect the public interest?
- Strict Liability offences normal exist to protect the public from issues of social concern.
- Lord Reid, in the case of Warner v Metropolitan Police Officer, said that strict liability offences are ''quasi criminal offences which do not offend our sense of justice that moral guilt is not the essence of the offence''
- This means it's not for us to judge if someone is morally to blame for their actions, it is for us to act in the best interests of the public.
- Lord Reid, in the case of Warner v Metropolitan Police Officer, said that strict liability offences are ''quasi criminal offences which do not offend our sense of justice that moral guilt is not the essence of the offence''
- Liability should depend on fault
- Justice requires fault to be on the part of the defendant because without liability it conflicts with our sense of justice and unfairness
- Also, it's morally offensive to punish someone who is blameless or who has taken reasonable care, such as in Limpus when the employer forbid the employee;s actions and was still at fault.
- Finally, without fault the law is reflected badly upon free society that people can be deprived of their liberty when they are not morally to blame for their actions.
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made