Criminal- Strict liability

• What is the definition of strict liability in criminal law?

  Strict liability is a legal doctrine holding a party liable without proof of negligence or intent.
• What is the liability equation in criminal law?

  Criminal liability is determined by actus reus, mens rea, causation, and omission.
• What are the components of the liability equation?

  Actus reus, mens rea, causation, and omission.
• In what context is strict liability mainly applied?

  Strict liability is mainly applied in regulatory contexts such as health and safety or driving offences.
• What is the significance of the case Sweet v Parsicy (1969)?

  It established that courts should presume mens rea is needed when the act has no mens rea words.
• What case established the presumption of mens rea in Hong Kong?

  Common thong Hong Kong Ltd v AG of Hong Kong (1984).
• What are the conditions under which the presumption of mens rea can be displaced?

  The presumption can be displaced for social concerns, particularly public safety.
• What type of offences are typically classified as strict liability offences?

  Strict liability offences are typically regulatory offences, such as health and safety violations.
• What is the implication of a potential custodial sentence in relation to strict liability?

  A potential custodial sentence implies the offence is truly criminal, not strict liability.
• How does strict liability promote law enforcement?

  Strict liability promotes law enforcement by encouraging greater vigilance among individuals.
• What is the due diligence defence in strict liability cases?

  The due diligence defence allows a defendant to show they did everything possible to avoid committing the offence.
• What does the case Callow v Tustone (1900) illustrate about due diligence?

  It illustrates that due diligence was not available because the offence was strict liability.
• What is the relationship between mens rea and strict liability offences?

  Strict liability offences do not require mens rea for a conviction.
• What are the four common law offences that are exceptions to strict liability being created by statute?

  Public nuisance, criminal libel, blasphemous libel, and criminal contempt of court.
• What is the significance of the case Nizar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)?

  It demonstrates that defendants without mens rea and who did not act voluntarily can still be found guilty.
• What does the case Larsonneur (1933) illustrate about strict liability?

  It illustrates that a defendant can be found guilty even without mens rea if they did not act voluntarily.
• How does the case Blake (1997) relate to strict liability?

  It relates to strict liability by showing that making an offence one of strict liability can enhance the effectiveness of the law.
• What is the role of social concern in justifying strict liability offences?

  Social concern allows strict liability to be justified for a wide range of offences, particularly those related to public safety.
• What is the outcome of the case DPP vs Max Affairs regarding strict liability?

  The case illustrates that strict liability can apply even when the act was committed accidentally.
• What is the implication of the phrase "committing crime by accident" in strict liability?

  It implies that individuals can be held liable for offences even if they did not intend to commit them.
• How does the case Harrow IBC v Shah and Shnan (1999) contribute to the understanding of strict liability?

  It contributes by illustrating the application of strict liability in regulatory contexts.
• What is the significance of the case Kmon and Whitehouse v Gay News (1979)?

  It is significant as it relates to the application of strict liability in the context of criminal libel.