strict liability offences

strict liability judgements


  • promotions of high standards of care = callow v tillstone, smedleys v breed and woodward
  • deterrence
  • public protection
  • administratively convenient
  • easyer to obtain convictions
  • less stigma
  • less severe penalties
  • not in breech of human rights = r v g and r v deyemi


  • unjust and harsh callow v tillstone
  • conviction stigma sweet and parlsley, r v g
  • no real detterant effect
  • improving standards of care
  • administrative conveniance
  • not all offences are minor e.g storkwain and gammon
  • courts have difficulty in identifying strict liability offences gammon


overall i feel that strict liability offences may be seen as unjust and harsh and a possible disadvantage for the legal system however to me the only problem with strict liability offences is that they don't allow for a defence due to the presumption of mens rea and the fact prosecution only need to provide an actus reus. 


No comments have yet been made