Strict Liability
Strict Liability requires No Men’s Rea.
Absolute Liability = No MR or Voluntary AR.
Absolute Cases:
Larsonneur:
- woman visa running out, moves to Ireland.
- Ireland deports her.
- Arrested for being illegal alien in England.
Winzar:
- man drunk, police drop him off at highway.
- arrested again for being drunk in highway.
Gammon
Gammon v Attorney General Hong Kong 1985:
- Builder deviated from plans in a substantial way.
- Set test for when presumption of MR can be rebutted.
- Regulatory not True Crime
True Crime:
Sweet v Parsley 1970:
- Teacher letting house to students
- Students smoking cannabis
- Charged with being knowingly concerned.
Decided Crime had high social stigma so truly criminal and not SL.
Regulatory:
Harrow v Shah & Shah 1999:
- Selling lottery to under 16’s
Callow v Tillstone:
- Selling unfit meat
- No due diligence
Sexual Offences:
R v Prince 1875:
- Held no MR required.
B v DPP 2000:
- High social stigma
- MR needed
R v K 2001:
- Followed B v DPP
- Social Concern
Where Crime is one of Social Concern, MR may be rebutted.
Alphacell 1972:
- Impossible Onus proving MR
- Wording of the Act
Where the section of the Act is silent on Men’s Rea, judges look to the other sections of the Act. If MR is in other sections, the judge will presume the silence is deliberate and the Crime is on of Strict Liability.
Storkwain 1986:
- Pharmacist gave prescription drugs to man with fake prescription.
- Phramacist had no knowledge of the fraud.
- Convicted because silence was presumed deliberate.
Cundy v Le Cocq 1884:
- Sold alcohol to drunk man, claimed he didn’t know man was drunk.
- Convicted because Act silent, presumption of no MR.
Sherras v De Rutzen 1895:
- D charged with selling alcohol to police officer whilst he was on duty.
- Officer had taken off ‘on duty’ badge, D had no way of knowing
- D relied on defence of mistake, conviction quashed.
- Small Penalty
If the offence carries a small penalty, it indicates that it is not a true crime and, therefore, on of Strict Liability.
Williams 2011:
- Offence of causing death by driving without licence had max penalty 2yrs prison.
- Offence of death by reckless driving had 14yr prison sentence.
- Used 2yr and indicated it was SL.
For Strict Liability
-Protects the Public (Callow v Tillstone)
-Easier to Administer:
Health and Safety deal with H & S issues
-Detterent to Public
-Maintains Order
-No Social Stigma
-We Couldn’t Function Without It.
Against Strict Liability
- Unfair to D
- All Convictions Have Social Stigma
- Duly Diligent People Convicted
- People Who aren’t Aware that what they are Doing is Wrong, Cannot be Dettered.
