Strict liability

• Strict Liability


  When the mens rea (mental element) does not have to be proved for at least one part of the actus reus (physical element), making it easier for the prosecution to obtain a conviction
• There is a presumption of mens rea in all criminal cases, as seen in the case of SWEET v PARSLEY (1969)
• GAMMON TEST


  The presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if the statute is clear on this point or if the statute is one of social concern such as public safety, and the offence is "truly criminal" rather than just a regulatory offence
• There are some rare offences of ABSOLUTE LIABILITY when no mens rea at all is required, such as a "state of affairs" offence as in LARSONNEUR (1933)
• Due Diligence


  A defence where the defendant will not be liable if they do everything in their power to avoid the offence
• Cases where the due diligence defence was not available

  • Callow v Tillstone (selling of unfit food)
  • Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah (selling of lottery tickets to underage)
• In Callow v Tillstone, a butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale, even though a vet had assured him the meat was fit for consumption
• In Smedleys v Breed, the defendant company was convicted of selling food not of the substance demanded by the purchaser, as some tins of peas contained caterpillars
• In Alphacell, the company was found guilty of causing polluted matter to enter a river, even though there was no evidence of negligence, as the offence was one of strict liability and of utmost public importance
• In Blake, the defendant was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a licence, even though he believed he was making a demonstration and did not know he was transmitting
• In Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah, the defendants were convicted of selling a lottery ticket to a 13-year-old, even though they had instructed their staff to check the age of anyone who looked under 16
• Justifications for Strict Liability offences


  • Encourage greater vigilance
  • Only for public safety or social concern
  • Easier to prove
  • Takes less time in court
  • Encourages compliance with the law
  • Prevents defences being raised as an excuse
  • Makes regulation straightforward
  • Protects the public
• Strict liability can lead to unjust results, as seen in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain where the defendant was convicted for supplying drugs for a forged prescription, even though he did not know it was forged
• The law has provided conflicting decisions, such as in Cundy v Le Cocq where there was an offence of selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person, but in Sherras v De Rutzen the defendant's conviction was quashed for serving alcohol to a constable on duty
• In R v G (2008), a 15-year-old boy was convicted of statutory rape for having consensual sex with a 12-year-old girl who told him she was 15 and looked 15, which was a strict liability offence
• The statement by Lord Nicholls in B v DPP that "the more serious the offence, the greater was the weight to be attached to the presumption of mens rea" seemed to be forgotten in R v G
• Duty of Care - no duty owed to trespassers (except children)
• Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - occupiers owe a duty of care to all visitors except trespassers
• Children are treated differently under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 due to their vulnerability.
• Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, occupiers have a higher standard of care towards children than adults because they are considered to be at particular risk from hazards on premises.
• Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, it is an offense to allow premises to become dangerous or injurious to young persons.