OCR - Law, Strict Liability cases

All cases in a table

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: A
  • Created on: 31-03-12 15:41
Preview of OCR - Law, Strict Liability cases

First 315 words of the document:

Strict Liability ­ Cases
Name Happened Law
Absolute liability
Lasonneur 1933 The defendant was
convicted of being found in
the UK, contrary to the
Aliens Order of 1920, even
thought she had been
brought forcibly into the UK
by the immigration
Winzar 1983 The defendant was
removed from a hospital
by police and was then
arrested and found guilty
of being drunk on the
highway, even though the
police officers had put him
Strict liability
Prince 1875 Knew the girl he took was Knowledge of her age was
in possession of her not required and he had
father, but believed she intention so was strict
was 18. Convicted as had liability, proof Is not
intention to remove girl needed for mens rea
from father.
Hibbert 1869 Defendant met girl aged 14 mens rea was not needed
on street, he took her to for age but was to remove
another place and they had for father and he had no
sexual intercourse. intention of doing so
No fault liability
Callow V Tillstone1900 Butcher asked vet to Strict liability was guilty as
examine carcass to see if was against the public and
was good. Vet assured him he carrying out reasonable
it was. Butcher sold it. tests is not considered.
No due diligence
Harrow V shah, shah Defendants owned a Offence did not require
1999 newsagent .They carried mens rea as the act was
out precautions so no one enough to make the
under 16 could buy a defendants guilty even
lottery ticket. A member though they had tried to
of staff sold one to 13 yr prevent it from happening.
old without asking for ID. Against the National
Lottery Act 1993

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

No defence of mistake
Cundy V le cocq 184 D was charged with selling Magistrate held there was
liqueur to a drunk person, proof the sale had taken
they had not noticed he place and the person
was drunk as he did served was drunk, was
nothing to indicate against the Licensing Act
insobriety. 1872
Sherras V De Rutzen D was convicted of The conviction was
supplying alcohol to a quashed as there was
constable on duty.…read more


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »