Strict liability

• Strict Liability


  Crimes that do NOT require mens rea (guilty mind)
• D is guilty because they have committed the actus reus (guilty act) even if they didn't have the necessary intention
• Mens rea


  Guilty mind
• Callow v Tillstone [1900]

  • Example of a strict liability offence
• Why do we have strict liability offences?

  • To encourage high standards of behaviour
  • Protect the public from dangerous activity
  • Makes it easier to prove the offence
• How do the courts decide if an offence is one of strict liability?

  1. Guidelines were set out in the case of Gammon

  2. Courts should always start with the presumption that mens rea is required

  3. The presumption is stronger for true crimes

  4. The presumption can only be rebutted if there is clear evidence that Parliament wanted to make it a strict liability offence

  5. The presumption can only be rebutted for offences involving a matter of social concern

  6. The presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that making it a strict liability offence will assist in preventing it
• Sweet v Parsley


  • A school-teacher rented her house out to students. The students were smoking cannabis in the house. She was unaware of this activity. Conviction quashed = this crime needed mens rea!
• B v DPP


  • A 14 year old boy sat next to a 13 year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex. She refused. The boy believed the girl was over 14. Conviction quashed as it was a serious crime (true crime) so MR was needed
• If convicted of a true crime society would view the person as a 'criminal'!
• Where the offence contains no mens rea words but other sections of the Act do it is presumed Parliament left the mens rea words out on purpose so this offence is one of strict liability
• If these words are present - mens rea is needed!
• Examples of offences involving a matter of social concern

  • Pollution
  • Food hygiene