Strict Liability

• Strict Liability offences can be committed with only the actus reus being present. The defendant's state of mind is irrelevant. It is sometimes called "No-fault" liability.
• • All that needs to be proven is that D did Actus Reus.
  • D must have done this voluntarily.
  • This is different to offences of absolute liability - can be done without mens rea and without voluntary actus reus.
  • Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent(1983)
  • R v Larsonneur (1933)
• • Strict Liability offences seen as harsh on D - but purposefully so.
  • They are justified on basis that they help to ensure compliance with the law, before an offence has been committed.
  • They type of offences which fall under strict liability usually regulatory offences - is where law trying to regulate (control) our behaviour in order to make society safer.
• Strict Liability offences are:

  • RARE (they are the exception)
  • MINOR (e.g. the punishment is a fine)
  • REGULATORY (to make us extra careful)
• Strict Liability:

  • Sometimes an Act of Parliament will clearly state that an offence is one of strict liability.
  • However, if it does not state this, sometime the prosecution will argue in court that something should be seen as a strict liability offence - because this makes it easier to prove someone is guilty.
  • It will be up to the courts to decide if the offence should be one of strict liability or not.
• When deciding, the courts will look at the following four questions which were created in the case of Gammon v AG for Hong King (1985):

  1. The court should always presume mens rea is required.
  2. This presumption is even stronger when the offence is 'truly criminal in nature.
  3. The wording of a statute must be extremely clear before it can displace this presumption.
  4. An offence more likely to be classed as strict liability if it is an issue of social concern.
• • The court should always presume mens rea is required.
  • Sweet v Parsley (1969)
  • D was a landlord who was unaware her tenants were growing cannabis in their student house. She was not guilty as she did not have the mens rea, and this was required because nothing highlighted otherwise.
• • This presumption is even stronger when the offence is 'truly criminal'
  • R v Blake (1997)
  • D was found stood at a set of decks, playing music and wearing headphones. He was charged for transmitting a pirate radio station and making unlicensed broadcasts using frequencies used by emergency services. He claimed he thought he was making a demo tape and did not know he was transmitting, so had no mens rea.
  • He was found guilty, and despite this carrying a prison sentence and therefore appearing 'truly criminal', the issue of social concern was greater.
• • The wording of a statute must be extremely clear before it can displace this presumption:
  • R v Lane and Letts (2018):
  • D's were parents who sent £233 to their son who had travelled tp Syria to fight with Daesh. They were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 with sending funds to be used for terrorism puposes. They argued this required mens rea - however the court rejected this and found them guilty, stating the words of the statute clearly did not require this.
• • An offence is more likely to be classed as strict liability if it is an issue of social concern.
  • Harrow LBC v Shah (1999):
  • D's shop employee sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old. D had warned staff and put up signs to remind them to check proof age. However, D was still guilty because underage gambling is an issue of social concern and the law needed to be strict to ensure compliance.
• • An offence is more likely to be classed as strict liability if it is an issue of social concern.
  • Cundy v Le Cocq 1884:
  • Licensing abuse - selling alcohol to an intoxicated person.
  • Smedleys v Breed 1974:
  • Consumer protection and quality of goods - caterpillars found in tins of peas.
  • Warner v MPC 1969:
  • Possession of drugs
  • DPP v Harper 1997:
  • Road safety and drink driving (no defence of Insanity)
  • Alphacell v Woodward 1972:
  • Pollution (here involving a river)
  • B v DPP 2000:
  • Underage indecency
  • R v Howells 1977:
  • Firearms licences
• • Making an offence one of strict liability wpuld encourage people to observe the law. If not, there is no point in imposing strict laibility.
  • Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963):
  • An order was made preventing D from entering Singapore - however D was not made aware of this order existing.
  • When he travelled to Singapore he was arrested. He was found not guilty as he had not know the order existed. Making this a strict liability offence would not make it more likely for the order to be followed - D would need to have known about the order.