Strict Liability

• Duty of care


  The legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others
• Pittwood


  • Duty of care owed
• Gibbins & Procter


  • Duty of care owed
• Stone & Dobinson


  • Duty of care owed
• Levels of mens rea

  • Intent
  • Reckless
  • Negligence
• Gross negligence


  Negligence so bad it deserves criminal punishment
• Adomako


  • Case that defines gross negligence manslaughter
• Strict liability


  Crimes where the actus reus alone is sufficient, no need to prove mens rea
• Strict liability crimes

  • Regulatory offences e.g. food hygiene, motoring offences
• Strict liability case

  • Callow v Tillstone - Butcher convicted despite taking precautions
• How judges decide if a crime is strict liability

  1. Start with presumption mens rea is required

  2. Look at cases where judges decided it was strict liability
• Strict liability cases

  • Harrow v Shah - Sale of lottery ticket to under-age person
  • Smedley's v Breed - Caterpillar found in tin of peas
  • Alphacell v Woodward - Pollution caused by blocked pump

  
• Thames Water fined £20 million for river pollution
• Strict liability crimes are to protect society
• Advantages of strict liability

  • Easier to enforce
  • Promotes safety and compliance
  • Saves time as defendants more likely to plead guilty
  • Protects the public
• Disadvantages of strict liability

  • Sometimes seen as harsh
  • Large companies may risk the fine
  • Can affect reputation even with small fine