Strict Liability

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rosiedenn
  • Created on: 01-12-14 21:18

A Strict Liabilty Offence = A voluntary actus reus is required without the need to prove any kind of Mens Rea. (Lord Diplock-Lemon 1979)

Why?- To regulate behaviour and improve standards by easy imprisonment

Pharmaceuticals V Stalkwein (1986)- No mention of mens rea being required in this section of the statute, so courts deemed it one of strict liability. 

Usually one of a small prison sentence as not seen as fair to give big sentence without the intention/mental reason for commiting the offence. Almost half of statutes are strict liability (some 3,500), most of which ae quasi-crimes or regulatory. There are only three offences made by common law which are strict liability: 

1) Outraging public decency - Gibson & Sylverie (1991)

2) Criminal Libel

3) Public Nuisance

Absolute Liability

The actus reus can be involuntary and no mens rea required.

Very rare as they are often seen as unfair = 1) Larsonneur (1933) 2) Winzar (1983)

Presumption that Mens rea need only be absent for one actus reus= can be strict liability

Prince (1875)- Guilty for taking from father (had MR) not for the intercourse



No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »