Criminal liability- strict liability

What are strict liability offences?

They are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to the actus reus. They are often in relation to health and public safety.

1 of 13

What are examples of strict liability offences?

Driving offences such as speeding, not wearing a seatbelt or driving without an insurance.

2 of 13

Why is the harshness of strict liability in criminal law generally tolerated?

As it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public.

3 of 13

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v. AG for Hong Kong (1985)

Courts will presume that a criminal offence requires MR; this presumption is particularly strong where the offence is 'truly criminal'; the presumption for statutory offences can be displaced if it is clear that is what Parliament intended.

4 of 13

In which situation can the presumption of mens rea be displaced (Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v. AG for Hong Kong (1985))?

Where the matter is to do with social concern/public safety. Even when a statute is on these issues, the presumption of MR stands unless it's shown that by making it strict liability, it'll create greater vigilance and thus promote the purpose of Act

5 of 13

What is a reason for making some offences strict liability?

As it would be near impossible to prove MR in some offences (e.g. parking, speeding) and without it, people would escape conviction. Some consequences are so serious that criminal sanctions must be imposed as a matter of social policy.

6 of 13

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Storkwein (1986)

A pharmacist was convicted for supplying drugs without a valid prescription, even though he didn't know the signature was forged.

7 of 13

G (2000)

A 15 year-old was convicted of statutory **** by having sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13. He believed and had been told by the victim that she was 15.

8 of 13

Harrow Council v. Shah (1999)

A sales assistant at a newsagent's business was found guilty of selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16.

9 of 13

Alphacell v. Woodward (1972)

A factory owner was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river even though the appellant was unaware of the pollution.

10 of 13

Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1982)

D was drunk in a hospital and was found slumped on a bench in the hospital. Two policemen removed him to the roadway where they charged him with being found drunk in a highway.

11 of 13

Smedleys v. Breed (1974)

4 tins out of 3,500,000 tins contained caterpillars. They were convicted of "selling food not of the substance demanded by the purchaser".

12 of 13

B v. DPP (2000)

The Divisional Court (QBD) convicted a 15 year-old boy for inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, finding that it was an offence of strict liability - HoL disagreed saying that where there's no mention of MR, it's still needed

13 of 13

Get Revising

Criminal liability- strict liability

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: