Strict Liability

• strict liability 


  -> offences that require no fault (or partial mens rea) and some/all actus reus

  ->tend to be regulatory and less serious- more of a social concern

  -> sweet v parsley - court presumed offence required mens rea

  -> R v williams - prosecuted for death by driving unlicensed, disqualified and uninsured- D claimed this required fault but was driving uninsured
• reasons for strict liability

  1. save the legal system time and money-> D notified in writing and pays a fine so no court time/reduced costs
  2. acts a deterrent-> if caught, no opportunity to defend regardless of circumstances
  3. individuals must be responsible for their own actions-> encourages defendants to to undertake high standards to avoid conviction
  4. quasi criminal offences-> minor offences and so consequences wont have a significant detrimental effect
• absolute liability


  -> no mens rea required and actus reus does not need to be voluntary

  -> state of affairs->liable for being found in circumstances

  • r v larsonneur-> alien due to being deported 2x
  • winzor v CC of kent -> drunken and antisocial behaviour must be deterred
• key cases

  • PSGB v Storkwain - regulation of supply of medicines
  • Callow v Tillstone - food safety important
  • R v Prince - proection of children is a social concern
  • Alphacell v Woodward - safety/pollution are social concerns
  • R v blake - radio bonds are used by emergency services and so unauthorised use must be stopped
• 5 factors considered when looking at strict liability offences

  Gammon v AG Hong Kong

  • presumption of mens rea
  • truly criminal
  • statute must clearly exclude mens rea
  • for public safety/social concern
  • encourage greater vigilance

  B v DPP

  ->believed the girl was over 14 and she wasnt

  truly criminal act so not interpreted as a strict liability offence
• Arguments against strict liability (1)

  1. liable but not blameworthy- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah -> did their best to prevent sales of lottery tickets to under 16s, but still happened so still liable
  2. guilty even if unaware of risk- Environmental agency v empress car co -> HoL considered 'cause' in an act where there was strict liability- D could only escape liability if he could prove it was extraordinary/abnormal and not way of life
• arguments against strict liability (2)

  3. does not improve standards -> no evidence of ensuring high levels of health and safety, some precautions too expensive so businesses take the risk- fine may cost less

  4. contrary to human rights -> R v G - told the offence was strict liability and as a consequence plead guilty-> HoL decided there was no breach of human rights and they were guilty even though he has reasonable grounds to believe the girl was the same age
• arguments against strict liability (3)

  5. social stigma -> can be imposed even where it creates serious social stigma -> not often an issue because regulatory quasi criminal crimes have little to no stigma

  R v G - put on sex offenders register