Strict Liability
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 21-05-14 09:38
View mindmap
- Strict liability
- Concept of Strict liability
- mens rea is not needed for at least one element of a voluntary actus reus
- must be proved that D did relevant actus reus
- Absolute Liability
- no mens rea is required at all and the actus reus need not be voluntary
- following conditions must apply
- offence does not require any mens rea
- no need to prove that D's actus reus was voluntary
- Larsonneur (1933) - D ordered to leave UK, so sent to Ireland - but they deported her back to UK
- found guilty of an offence under the Alien Order 1920
- Winzar v CC of Kent (1983) - taken to hospital because he appeared to be ill, however it was later found he was drunk
- convicted of being found drunk on a highway under s12 Licensing Act 1892
- Principles of Strict Liability
- initial presumption of mens rea
- if court decide that offence does not require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus = SL
- no need for mens rea for all aspects of offence
- Prince (1875) - took girl from father, reasonably believing her to be 18 or over, but she was under 18
- intended to take girl and liability strict as to age to protect young girls
- Hibbert (1869) met girl aged 14 and they had sex
- not convicted as no proof he intended to remove girl from father even though liability strict to her age
- Prince (1875) - took girl from father, reasonably believing her to be 18 or over, but she was under 18
- no fault
- D can be liable even if the prohibited consequence occurs inadvertently and their act was totally blameless
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) - butcher convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale
- irrelevant that vet passed meat as fit for human consumption
- no 'due diligence' defence
- sometime parliament incorporate a defence of due diligence into statutes
- D will not be liable if he can show he did all within his power not coomit the offence
- no sensible pattern when parliament decides to include defence
- Harrow LBC v Shah + Shah (1999)
- employee sold lottery ticket to under 16
- conviction even though given employees instructions on checking age before sale + nothing more could be done
- employee sold lottery ticket to under 16
- sometime parliament incorporate a defence of due diligence into statutes
- No defence of mistake
- no defence even if mistake honest
- Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) - D charged with selling intoxicating liquor to drunken person
- sale taken place + drunken state could have been observed even though no obvious evidence
- Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) - D's daughter sold alcohol to constable on duty - no way of knowing due to lack of police armband
- conviction quashed as nothing D could do to prevent offence
- initial presumption of mens rea
- Concept of Strict liability
Comments
No comments have yet been made