Strict liability

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Xandra_95
  • Created on: 01-04-14 22:52
Prince (1875)
P took girl from her father, reasonably believing her to be 18 or over. P intended to take girl and liability strict to age to protect young girls.
1 of 19
Hibbert (1869)
H met a girl aged 14 and they had sex. H not convicted as no proof he intended to remove girl from father.
2 of 19
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
Butcher convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale. Irrelevant that vet passed meat as fit for human consumption.
3 of 19
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
Employee sold lottery ticket to child aged 13, mistakenly thinking over 16. Convicted even though gave employee instructions to check age and nothing more could be done.
4 of 19
Cundy v Le Cocq
D charged with selling intoxicating liquor to drunken person. Sale proved to have taken place and drunken state could have been observed.
5 of 19
Sherras v De Rutzen (1895)
D's daughter sold alcohol to constable on duty but no way of knowing due to lack of police armband. Conviction quashed as nothing D could do to prevent offence.
6 of 19
Sweet v Parsley (1969)
D rented farmhouse to tenants who smoked weed. D was charged with being concerned in management of premises used for smoking weed. If statutory section silent on mens rea, need for it is presumed.
7 of 19
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG of Hong Kong (1984)
Deviating from building plans was a breach of Hong Kong planning laws. Presumption for mens rea can be displaced in certain situations.
8 of 19
Pharmaceutical society of GB v Storkwain (1986)
S charged under s58(2) Medicines Act 1968 with supplying drugs without doctors prescription as it was forged. Read statute as whole and, unlike other sections, relevant section silent as to mens rea, therefore strict liability imposed.
9 of 19
Muhamad (2002)
M charged with materially contributing to the extent of insolvency by gambling. Section under which M charged said nothing about mens rea and strict liability presumed.
10 of 19
Wings Ltd v Ellis (1984)
Room provided by holiday company did not match brochure description. Strict liability offence as designed to raise standards and protect consumers.
11 of 19
Alphacell v Woodward (1972)
Company charged with letting polluted water run into river. Offence even though company did not know of pollution and had not been negligent.
12 of 19
B v DPP (2000)
B convicted of inciting child under 14 to commit act of gross indecency. Likelihood of strict liability decreased as crime more serious in sentence and stigma.
13 of 19
Howells (1977)
H charged with possessing firearm without certificate. Risk to public outweighed severity of possible sentence.
14 of 19
Blake (1997)
B was DJ convicted of broadcasting without licence. Need to regulate behaviour and ensure that emergency services not interrupted.
15 of 19
K (2001)
K had consensual sex with a girl he believed 16 or over but was in fact 14. On question of defence of mistake, offence was not incompatible with Article 6 right to a fair trial.
16 of 19
G (2008)
G was 15 and had sex with girl aged 12 but he reasonably believed her older as she told him she was 15. G was charged with **** of child under 13. Offence strict liability and no breach of human rights despite consent of the girl etc.
17 of 19
Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963)
L convicted of remaining in Singapore when prohibited from entering. L had no knowledge of prohibition and not strict liability as offence did not make law more effective.
18 of 19
Kumar (2004)
K had consensual sex with boy aged 14 after meeting him at club where policy to admit only over-18s. K conviction quashed on basis that honest mistake should be defence.
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

H met a girl aged 14 and they had sex. H not convicted as no proof he intended to remove girl from father.

Back

Hibbert (1869)

Card 3

Front

Butcher convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale. Irrelevant that vet passed meat as fit for human consumption.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Employee sold lottery ticket to child aged 13, mistakenly thinking over 16. Convicted even though gave employee instructions to check age and nothing more could be done.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

D charged with selling intoxicating liquor to drunken person. Sale proved to have taken place and drunken state could have been observed.

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 »