AQA Criminal Law - Strict Liability

• Strict Liability


  These are offences that do not require any mens rea at all for one or more elements of the actus reus.
• Fault


  Since mens rea does not have to be proved, D may be guilty without proof of fault. S/he will have no excuse no matter how careful s/he has been.
• Conviction


  Simply causing the prohibited consequence will be sufficient to convict.
• Conduct


  For SLO D's conduct must be voluntary.
• Creation of Strict Liability

  Most strict liability offences are laid down by statute but they also exist in common law e.g. public nuisance and criminal libel.
• Example Crime


  D will be liable for driving while unfit through drink (s.4 Road Traffic Act 1988) even if s/he was unaware of her/his condition or not responsible for it.
• Callow v Tillstone


  D, a butcher, asked a vet to examine a carcass to check that it was fit for human consumption. On receiving the vet's recommendation that it was fit, he offered it for sale. But the vet had been negligent, and the meat was not fit. D was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale, even though he had exercised due care and taken reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence.
• Absolute Strict Liability


  State of affairs offences are an extreme form of SLO, one where D can be punished even though his/her conduct could not be classified as voluntary. So D may have no intention and may have not acted in a voluntary manner but s/he will still be guilty of an offence. (R v Larsonneur 1933; Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983)
• Conduct


  They often do not apply to the population at large but rather to people engaged in particular forms of conduct e.g. selling food, health & safety.
• Protection


  They give the public protection and promote greater vigilance.
• Alphacell v Woodward


  Protection against pollution was the reasoning behind the liability in ____________. A firm was unaware that its pumps had become obstructed and that a stretch of river had been polluted.
• Howells


  Convicted for failing to obtain a firearm's certificate despite the fact that he believed his gun was just an antique! This offered the public protection against unlawful weapons.
• Further Protection


  SLO also offer protection against dangerous drugs, illegal broadcasts and unsafe buildings.
• Common Law SLO


  There are very few common law SLO because the courts have always been opposed to the idea that a crime should not require some mens rea.
• Lemon v Gay News


  An example of a common law SLO crime.
• Gammon Guidelines


  A statute doesn't always make it clear whether a mens rea is needed or not. It is left up to a court to decide by statutory interpretation mainly using the "Gammon Guidelines" of the privy Council.
• Gammon Guidelines


  From the judgement in Sweet v Parsley 1970 and other cases a number of presumptions (rules) have been developed.
• Gammon Guidelines

  If the statute makes it clear that it is an SLO then it is. If there is no indication that a statute is or is not an SLO, there is a presumption that parliament did not intend to make criminals of people who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. A court should read in words that are appropriate to require mens rea. This presumption can be overturned if there is a sound reason for doing so.
• Gammon Guidelines


  The fact that other sections of the statute do require mens rea is not conclusive proof that a section which is silent on mens rea is intended to impose strict liability.
• Gammon Guidelines


  Where a section is silent as to mens rea, the court may use extrinsic aids to establish parliament's intention.
• Gammon Guidelines (Quasi-Criminal Offences)


  ________ and truly criminal acts are treated differently. There is usually little stigma attached to __________ offences so strict liability may be more easily inferred. In the case of truly criminal offences, the courts are more reluctant to infer strict liability because of the stigma attached to a criminal conviction.
• Gammon Guidelines


  If an offence carries imprisonment it is likely to be a "truly criminal" offence and so less likely to be considered an SLO. An example of such an offence is B v DPP 2000.
• Gammon Guidelines


  If an offence applies only to a specific class of persons who are engaged in a particular activity such as food, drugs, liquor etc. the court is more likely to find it is an SLO. If it applies to society as a whole it is more likely to be a true crime (although driving is an exception).
• Gammon Guidelines

  The greater the social danger, the more likely it is that the presumption of mens rea will be ignored. This is why driving offences are often strict liability, even though many citizens drive.
• Harrow LBC v Shah


  A quasi-criminal offence of strict liabilityThe National Lottery regulations say that tickets should not be sold to customers under the age of 16. X who worked at the shop sold a ticket to a 13 year old boy who looked considerably older. The case went to appeal. The High Court directed a conviction because the offence was not truly criminal and could therefore be one of strict liability. D did not sell the lottery ticket and was not even on the premises. He had actually instructed his staff not to sell tickets to those under 16. D was vicariously liable.
• Sweet v Parsley


  D let her farmhouse out to students whilst she worked abroad. The police found cannabis at the farmhouse. D had no idea that this was going on but was charged with allowing the smoking of cannabis in her farmhouse. She could have gone to prison. This was considered to be an SLO in the lower courts but the Law Lords felt this was unjust because of the stigma attached to drugs. The House of Lords made it into a true criminal offence by reading into the act a mens rea. D's conviction was therefore quashed.
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986


  SLO offences can be unjust because D may be completely unaware that an offence is being committed
• R v G


  Are SLOs against human rights laws?
• Raising Standards


  The imposition of liability may not have the effect of raising standards even though this was the purpose of the act. If a person is already doing everything that can reasonably be expected of him how will strict liability impose greater vigilance?
• Resentment for the Law


  They may well foster feelings of resentment and injustice creating lack of respect for the law. Is a conviction of the morally innocent ever justified?
• Diligence

  Many people argue that there should be a "due diligence" or "no negligence" defence so D would not be guilty if he/she had taken all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. When a criminal conviction is imposed the penalties can be severe. In Shah the maximum sentence could have been 2 years imprisonment.
• Cundy v Le Cocq 1884.


  No defence of mistake is available for an SLO when D has made an honest mistake.
• Due-diligence and no-negligence defences

  1. These are available in Canada and Australia. 2. There is perhaps room for similar developments in the UK.3. The presumption would be of negligence and D must prove s/he had not been negligent.4. Success in so-doing would be a defence.5. At the moment due diligence defences sometimes appear in statutes but not always so. The situation is therefore inconsistent and uncertain.
• Benefits of Strict Liability

  1. It encourages high standards. A successful prosecution may deter others.2. Quasi-criminal offences create little stigma.3. They are effective in protecting society by controlling the pollution of rivers, limiting drunk driving or even the construction of unsafe buildings (Gammon v AG for Hong Kong 1984).4. They are administratively convenient. There is no need to establish mens rea and this leads to more efficient law enforcement. Time is saved because people are more likely to plead guilty.5. Any lack of blame can be taken into account when sentencing.
• Reforms

  1. A wider use of due diligence defences should be encouraged.2. Statutes should explicitly state whether an offence is an SLO or not.3. Ensure that no SLO is imprisonable.4. All quasi-criminal offences should be removed from the criminal system and treated as administrative offences.