Strict liability

• What is special about a strict liability crime?

  It doesn't require mens rea
• Examples?


  Driving without insurance, selling alcohol to an underage person and polluting a river
• Origins?

  In the Victorian period strict liability offences came about especially in regard to maintaining higher standards, strictly forbidden because of the harm they may cause to others
• Absolute liability?

  Also known as 'state of affairs' offences as there's no need to prove the actus reus was voluntary and D is liable purely for 'being found' in a situation. In Larsonneur D was a French national in England but couldn't worked due to this so left for Ireland, she was deported back against her will by the police and found guilty of being in the UK. In Winzar v CC of Kent police removed a drunk from a hospital and put him in the police car, found guilty of being found drunk on a highway. Irrelevant that his presence on the highway was momentary and not of his own volition.
• How many statutory offences are strict liability?

  Half (3500 of 7000)
• Problems with strict liability?

  They cover a wide range of areas including food, transport and road traffic offences. This can create problems as sometimes statutes have to be interpreted carefully to check whether there is any reference to mens rea. If a statute, on forbidding a certain act, includes words like knowingly or intentionally then the offence wont be strictly liable
• Are cases of strict liability in common law rare? Example?

  Very rare but blasphemous libel is one example of a common law case of strict liability (Whitehouse v Lemon 1979)
• What happens when an act doesn't include any words indicating mens rea? Case?

  The judge will start by presuming that all criminal offences require mens rea, made clear in Sweet v Parsley. They'll also look at other sections of the Act to see if other offences have words of intention or not. If they do but the relevant section doesn't then it's likely to be strictly liable
• Gammon (Hong Knong) Ltd. 1985


  Lord Scarman created the Gammon tests for strict liability:

  1. Presume mens rea is required before a person can be guilty of a criminal offence
  2. Presume further if the offence is 'truly criminal' in nature
  3. Strict liability can only be assumed in statute if it is clear or by necessary implication the effect of the statute
  4. Presumption of mens rea can be displaced with issues of social concern and public safety
  5. Even with these issues mens rea is still presumed unless it's shown that its strict liability will promote higher standards
• What areas does strict liability operate - cases

  • Protection of environment - Alphacell v Woodward
  • Food safety - Callow v Tillstone
  • Public safety- Gammon v AG of Hong Kong, Bosher, Smedleys v Breed
  • Social concern - Lemon, Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
• B v DPP


  Where the charge is of true gravity, the stronger the presumption of mens rea. The decision was made this wasn't strictly liable because he'd get a criminal record and get put on the sex offenders register, in such seriousness that affects a future then they can choose not to have the case be of strict liability
• Due dilligence defence

  It reverses the burdern of proof so D must prove that on a balance if probabilities he'd taken precautions so they believed the act was legal
• Why were some drug and sexual offences tried and failed to be strictly liable?

  They are serious offences so mens rea should be required
• Social concern - Prince 1875


  Debate on whether the court is required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute which is silent as to the mens rea for an offence because it had no mention of mens rea in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 so it did not matter that D reasonably believed that V was an adult so didn't have the mens rea for the 'taking of an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father without the father's consent' because she was really 14
• Social concern - Hibbert 1869


  He was acquitted because he couldn't reasonably believe the girl was under the care of her father on the street at the time
• What is the distinguishing factor between Hibbert and Prince?

  evidence of being under the care of the father
• Cundy v Le Cocq 1884


  A good example of the Gammon test in practice. D was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person despite being unaware of the customers drunkenness. S13 of the licensing Act didn't refer to mens rea whereas the other offences in the Act required proof of knowledge. The omission to refer to mens rea was taken as deliberate and the offence was one of strict liability
• Sherras v De Rutzen 1895


  Convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty but it was quashed because whilst there was no mens rea for the offence it can be presumed that knowledge that the officer was on duty was a requirement of the offence in the Act
• Storkwait Ltd 1986


  Mens rea for the offence of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner was rejected because compared to other offences in the statute it was clear that there was an intentional omission, so it was strictly liable despite D having no knowledge of the forged signatures
• R v Blake 1996

  D was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence and his appeal was rejected on the basis the offence required mens rea, when it didn't. and it was strictly liable. The Gammon test was applied and while it was found the offence was 'truly criminal' and had imprisonment, it was of social concern and encouraged greater vigilance so it was deemed strictly liable