strict liability
- Created by: joshnicholls238
- Created on: 17-02-14 13:52
View mindmap
- Strict Liability
- definition
- area of law prosecution do not need to prove any mens rea for a criminal conviction
- no fault liability
- sufficient for prosecution to provide actus reus
- callow v tillstone
- woodward
- storkwain
- sufficient for prosecution to provide actus reus
- creation
- relates to issues of social concern
- examples = pollution, alcohol food/ food production driving offences etc
- most created by statute or regulations
- few = common law
- public nuisance
- outraging public decency
- gibson v sylverie
- few = common law
- relates to issues of social concern
- general presumption of men rea
- courts always start with assumption of mens rea e.g sherras v de rutsen
- presumption may be rebutted
- sweet v parsley
- gammon
- results in the gammon tests
- 1) presumption prosecution must prove mens rea
- 2) presumption strong were offence is truly criminal
- 4) only sit were presumption is displaced = were statute is concerned with a social issue
- 3) presumption applies to a statutory offences and can be displaced only if it is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statue
- results in the gammon tests
- true and quasi crimes or regulatory offences
- Harrow lbc v shah and shah
- isn't usually a prison penalty involved
- storkwain
- gammon
- howells
- language used in statutes and the statutory context
- woodward
- sweet and parsley
- storkwain
- issues of social concern
- food hygine
- callow v tillstone
- smedleys and breed
- under age sale of lottery tickets
- harrow lbc v shah and shah
- pollution
- express car company v national rivers authority
- woodward
- food hygine
- Defences
- no defence of due diligence
- callow v tillstone
- no defence of mistake
- woodrow
- cundy v la cocq
- no defence of due diligence
- definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made