Strict Liability

HideShow resource information
R v Prince (1875)
Prince intended to remove a girl from a house but he believed that she was over 18 and not in possession by her father. Although he did not know her age, he still intended to remove her from the house so mens rea was not required.
1 of 19
R v DPP (2000)
A boy asked a 15 year old girl for oral sex but he thought she was over 14. It was held that R v Prince did not set the precedent that all offences relating to age couldn't include mens rea. Because the law had moved on and so mens rea was considered
2 of 19
R v K (2001)
A man had sex with a 14 year od because he reasonably believed that she was 16. The judged initally ruled that mens rea was not required but its appeal was allowed, as with R v DPP because genuine disbelief of age was a defence.
3 of 19
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass, and the vet said it was fit for human consumption, and so he offered it for sale. However it was found not sound to eat. He was found guilty as it posed a concern for the general public.
4 of 19
Alphacell v Woodward (1972)
A company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river, when pumps failed. There was no evidence that the company knew of the pollution or it had been negligent, but they were found guilty as it was a matter of social concern.
5 of 19
Smedleys Ltd v Breed (1974)
In 4/3000000 tins of peas, caterpillars were found. The defendant tried to argue that under s3 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, the presence of caterpillars was a unavoidable consquence. They were still found guilty as they could have been removed.
6 of 19
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain (1968)
In s58 of the Medicine's Act 1968 it says no person shall supply specific medical products except with a perscription. D had supplied drugs to someone who had forged perscriptions. They were found guilty even though they thought the forgery was real.
7 of 19
Harrow LBC v Shan & Shan
The Ds owned a newsagent's. They had told staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16, and they should demand to see ID. A ticket was sold to a 13 year old. Even though a third party was involved, it was the Ds responsibility and so was found guilty
8 of 19
R v Blake (1997)
D was a DJ who was convicted of using a stationg for wireless telegraphy without a license. His defence was that he believed that he was making a demo tap and did not know he was transmitting. He was subject to strict liability.
9 of 19
Sherras v De Rutzen (1895)
A policeman walked into a house whilst on duty and removed his armband as he did. The defendant then supplied him with alcohol, believing he was off duty which was an offence under the Licensing Act 1872. They were not found guilty.
10 of 19
R v Brock & Wyner (2001)
Convicted in 1999 for knowingly permitting their property to be used for drug dealing. They claimed that they did notice that drug dealing was taking place, however, because they didn't do anything about it, they were subject to strict liability.
11 of 19
Lemon v Gay News (1979)
D published a poem about Christ that was considered an insult to Christianity. Though he did not intend to do it, he was still being blasphemious libel, and so was found guilty under strict liability.
12 of 19
R v Larsonneur (1933)
A frenchwoman landed in England, but her passport prevented her from working there. She left to Ireland, but because she couldn't enter, she was deported back to England. She was found guilty of being in the UK contrary to the Aliens Act 1920.
13 of 19
R v Winzar (1983)
D was drunk and was removed from a hospital and put out in the street. Even though he did not intend to block the highway, he was still found guilty of obstruction a highway or public place.
14 of 19
Sweet v Parsely (1969)
D rented a house to students, who were found smoking cannabis inside, without her knowing. At first she was charged with management of a premise for the purpose of smoking cannabis, but it was quashed as knowledge of the offence was essential.
15 of 19
Gammon v GA of Hong Kong (1985)
1. Presumption of mens rea can only be rebutted by clear words in the statute. 2.The presumption is strong for truly criminal cases. 3. Can be rebutted if it is once of social concern. 4. By using SL, it is in keeping with the statute's intention.
16 of 19
R v Matrdi (2003)
D thought he was bringing in some leaves, but officals found some endangered species, and for that he should have given advance notice. There was no mens rea words in the subsection but in other parts. Judges thought it was left out intentionally.
17 of 19
Cearke v Randof (1972)
A man had a roll-up of cannabis in his pocket even though he said he didn't know about it. Defendant was found guilty because it wasn't in a container, instead in a roll-up.
18 of 19
Warner v MPC (1969)
The D was charged with being in possession of drugs, but he believed the parcel contained perfume. HL held that the offence was one of strict liability, thus mens rea was unnecessary.
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

A boy asked a 15 year old girl for oral sex but he thought she was over 14. It was held that R v Prince did not set the precedent that all offences relating to age couldn't include mens rea. Because the law had moved on and so mens rea was considered

Back

R v DPP (2000)

Card 3

Front

A man had sex with a 14 year od because he reasonably believed that she was 16. The judged initally ruled that mens rea was not required but its appeal was allowed, as with R v DPP because genuine disbelief of age was a defence.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass, and the vet said it was fit for human consumption, and so he offered it for sale. However it was found not sound to eat. He was found guilty as it posed a concern for the general public.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

A company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river, when pumps failed. There was no evidence that the company knew of the pollution or it had been negligent, but they were found guilty as it was a matter of social concern.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »