Strict liability summary PDF

Preview

Summary

strict liability summary ...

Description

STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY Strict liability = a crime which has no mens re requirement in respect of at least one element of the actus reus. Absolute liability = crimes which have no mens rea requirement at all.

Reasons for strict liability offences: -

Regulates behaviour To set and drive up standards Fill in necessary gaps with defences that are easy to create

Four general principles of strict liability: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Lack of mens rea (Prince) No need for fault (Callow v Tillstone) No defence of “all due diligence” (Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah) No defence for mistakes (Cundy v Le Cocq & Sherras v De Rutzen)

Issues: -

There would be an inconsistency in sentencing as some defendants may have the mens rea element for the crime but be charged differently. People may commit crimes they weren’t aware they were committing, but others who knowingly commit the act regardless of mens rea may still be liable.

PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN v STORKWAIN LTD 1986 D was charged under s.58 of the medicines act which states ‘nobody shall supply certain drugs without a doctor’s prescription’ Ratio decidendi – the case went to the house of lords and D was guilty, it is necessary to show that the defendant has supplied the medicine without a valid prescription.

CALLOW v TILLSTONE – no need for fault A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. He said yes so, the butcher sold it. The butcher took responsible care to ensure that the offence wasn’t committed, but he was found guilty. He was convicted for exposing unsound meat for sale. The butcher must meet professional standards, from the publics point of view it isn’t what to expect.

STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY HARROW LBC v SHAH AND SHAH – all due diligence D owned a newsagent where lottery tickets were sold. All staff were told not to sell any lottery ticket to anyone under 16 and to check ID’s. one of the staff sold a ticket to a 13-yearold boy. The two shop owners were not on the premises at the time but were still both held liable. The magistrates dismissed charged, but the prosecution appealed to divisional courts where it was held to be a strict liability crime. They were charged under s13(1)(c) National Lottery Act 1993. The shop owners had an important position of trust and a duty of care to customers.

CUNDY v LE COCQ- no defence for mistake D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. D and employee said they hadn’t noticed he was drunk and he was “quiet in his demeanour and didn’t indicate insobriety.” The magistrates convicted the defendant, he appealed to divisional courts and the conviction was upheld. It is dangerous to sell alcohol to a drunk person. -

Protect the individual, not upholding moral standards and there is a duty of care to sell the item responsibly.

PRINCE – lack of mens rea D was charged with taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of her father’s possession. He had reasonable grounds to believe that she was 18. Charged under s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Conviction upheld, he satisfied the mens rea because he knew the girl was still in her father’s possession.

HIBBERT D met a 14-year-old girl on the street and took her elsewhere for sex. He was acquitted of the offence as it wasn’t proved that he knew the girl was in her father’s possession.

SWEET v PARSLEY A school teacher let her house out to students. The students were smoking weed in the house and she was unaware of this. The statute didn’t state any mens rea needed so the courts looked at common law instead which stated that knowledge was needed. She was liable.

STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY GAMMON TEST: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Clear or necessary from the statutory words The offence isn’t truly criminal The offence is of social concern The offence will help to enforce the law through greater vigilance

YES Does the offence have an express mens rea word?

Not a strict liability crime. Apply the mens rea.

NO

Is it a common law offence?

NO

Limited guidance on mens rea or it is a minor/regulatory crime with a short sentence = strict liability.

YES

YES

Is it the crime of public nuisance, outraging public decency or criminal defamatory libel?

Strict liability crime.

Not a strict liability crime.

NO...