Strict Liability

R v Larsonneur (1934) - a French woman came to England for a specified period of time. At the end of the period, she left the UK, and went to Ireland. The Irish Authorities made a deportation order and sent her back to the UK. She was charged under the Aliens Order 1920, for being in the country without permission. The defendant argued that she had been returned to the UK against her will. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal saying that the prosecution proved the facts necessary for a conviction. The actus reus was returning to the country when the defendant did not have permission to be in it, and was controversially found to apply strict liability to cases whether criminal liability could still be found even if the action was involuntary. 

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) - The defendant was brought on a stretcher to the hospital. The doctor discovered that he was merely drunk and asked him to leave. He was later seen slumped on a seat in the corridor and so the police were called. They removed him to the roadway, "formed the opinion he was drunk," and placed him in their car parked nearby. He was charged with being found drunk in a highway and convicted.

R v Sandhu (1997) - in strict liability crimes, fault is irrelevant to liability, hence the defendant can be convicted even though in moral terms he is not blameworthy. 

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1985) - the claimants (in this case) were involved in the construction of a building in Hong Kong. The building collapsed and the claimants were charged with deviating from the plans in a material way. There was no evidence to suggest that the claimants had realised that they had deviated from the plans. The Privy Council dismissed their appeal, and laid out the test for judges to use when deciding whether an offence imposes strict liability. First, there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence and that presumption is particularly strong where the offence is 'truly criminal' in character. The presumption can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute and only where the offence is concerned with an issue of social concern. However, even where a statute is concerned with such an…