Strict Liability

The Actus Reus in Strict Liabilty doesn't require the full mens rea, therefore a defendant can be convicted even when they didn't intend on the crime, however the punishment is most commonly a fine.

In the case of Storkwain a pharmacist was doing his job and accepted a perscription and gave the man the drugs, turns out the perscription was very well forged, the pharmacist was convicted as drugs are dangerous to society so by giving the forger the drugs he has commited a strict liability offence so guilty.

If a defent commits a crime of absolute liability then they require no mens rea.

In the case of Re Larsonneur a woman had been put into prison, the prison decided to move her into a UK prison, however she was banned from the UK, on arrival they convicted her of an absolute liability offence as she had no intention to come to the UK and she was guilty.

There are five gammon rules created in the case Gammon, they're guidline for judges to use in order to either convict or not convict a defendant.

1.Presumtion of mens reas - the judge will presume the defendant needs full mens rea to have committed the crime, if only partial then they wont be guilty.

2.Wording and context of the Act- the judge will look to whether mens rea is silent in the section of that Act, if so they will look at surrounding acts to see if they mention mens rea, if so then the judge will assume that the defendant doesn't need the full mens rea for the crime so guilty.

3.Quasi- a quasi is an offence which is the breaking of regulations, mostly in buisnesses. If the crime is quasi then it will be a strict liability offence and defendant will be guilty.

4.Danger and social concern- the crime will be strict liabilty if what ever has been commited is a danger to society or a social concern, if so then guilty.

5.Deterance- if punishing the defendant will result in people being detered from commiting that crime in future then the judge will impose strict liabilty so guilty.

In the case of Sweet, the defendant was a lanlord who rented out her propert to students, the students then grew cannabis in the attic of the property, the trial judge convicted her as drugs are a danger to society. However, the House of Lords reversed the decision and presumed she needed the full mens rea for the crime which she didnt have so not guilty.

In the case of B V DPP, the defendant was a 15 year old boy and on the bus he asked a 14 year old girl, who he believed to be the same age, for a shinner. It was help not strict liabilty as the judge presumed he need the full mens rea for the crime which he didn't have so not guilty.

In the case of G, the defendant was a 15 year old boy who slept with a 12 year old girl, the defendant didnt apply the gammon rule number 1 and held it a strict liability offence to protect vulnerable people so the defendant was guilty.

In the case of Cundy, the defendant worked in a shop, a drunk man came in and bought alcohol, the defendant was unaware that the man was over the limit, under section 13 you shouldn't serve someone over the drinking limity. The section of the act was silent to mens rea but others mentioned it so it was held strict liability and so the defendant was guilty.

In the case of Sherras, the defendant served an officer who had just walked into his pub and took off his badge (insinuating that he was off duty) under section 16 an officer shouldn't be served alcohol on duty, of which he was. The judge looked at the section of the act and it was silent to mens reas and others mentioned it so the judge transfered mens rea from one section to another and so the defendant wasn't guilty.

In the case of Shah and Shah, the defendant was an employee of a shop, they sold a lottery ticket to an underage child. The judge held that selling lottery tickets to underage children is a quasi offence so strict liability, therefore the shop owner was guilty vicariously via the employee.

In the case of Smedley's, a woman had complained that she had found a catapillar in her peas. The judge held that it was strict liability as selling unfit food is a quasi offence therefore guilty.

In the case of Alphacell, the pipes running along the outside of the factory were leaking polltion into the river, despite the company getting them maintained the day before. The judge held it was a strict liabilty offence as pollution is a danger to society, therefore the defendants were guilty.

In the case of Gammon, the defendant swapped the finalised building materials for cheaper ones. Once the buildings were built, before new owners moved in the collapsed. The judge said it was a strict liabilty offence as unsafe buildings are a danger to society therefore guilty.

In the case of Lim Chin Aik the defendants visa had run out, however he was unaware. The judge held if he was to be convicted then it wouldn't deter others in his situation as they would also be unaware so not strict liability therefore not guilty.