Transcript Strict Liability

Strict Liability
Criminal Law- A2
Mrs Howe
Starter- 5mins
 Is the taking of Drugs a crime?
 Should it be a crime?
 Give reasons for your answer?
Lesson Objectives
 To be able to identify when mens rea
is required and when it is not
 To be able to identify when a case is
one of strict liability
 To be able to explain what the
prosecution need to show for D to be
guilty of an offence of strict liability
 To understand why cases of strict
liability exist
Strict Liability
Offences of Strict Liability are crimes: which are designed to protect the public at large
 which do not require Mens Rea with regard to one or more
elements of the Actus Reus. Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain V Storkwain Ltd 1986
 which do not need intention or to have known of that
circumstance or cause.
Usual rules apply with regard to Actus Reus: Must be a Voluntary act
 Motive not relevant
Unless offence is one of Absolute Liability- Larsonnuer 1933
Strict Liability
 Means a person has responsibility for the
consequence of their actions even where they
did not have the intention (mens rea) to create
that consequence or to commit an offence.
Callow V Tillstone 1900
 The prosecution do not need to prove that D
had the required mens rea for all the of the
Actus reus for D to be found guilty of an
offence with strict liability. Sweet V Parsley
1970
Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain V Storkwain
Ltd 1986
D was charged under s 58 (2) of the Medicines
Act 1968 which states no one shall supply
certain drugs without a Dr prescription.
D had supplied drugs on prescription but later
found the prescription had been forged. Guilty
even though no finding that D had acted
dishonestly, improperly or even negligently
Pharmacist had supplied drugs without a genuine
prescription, this was enough to make him
guilty.
Larsonneur 1933
 The D who was from a foreign country and therefore
termed an ‘alien’, in the language of the time) had been
ordered to leave the UK.

She decided to go to Eire, where the Irish police sent
her back (deported) her and took her to police custody in
the UK.
 She did not want to return to the UK (no Mens Rea) and
her act of returning was not voluntary.
 Despite this she was found guilty under the Aliens Order
1920 of being an alien to whom leave to the land in the
UK has been refused and had been found in the UK.
Absolute liability
Offences of Strict liability
Judges often have difficulty deciding which
offences are ones of strict liability.
To decide they start by:Presume a mens rea is required-(Sweet V Parsley
1969)
Then look at the wording of the act- (intentionally,
knowingly, maliciously, permitting all mean mens rea
is required so not an offence of strict liability)
Most acts are silent on mens rea or strict liability which
make it difficult for Judges.
Case of Gammon V Attorney General of Hong Kong
1984
Task
Look at the case of Gammon Hong
Kong Ltd V Attorney General Hong
Kong
Explain what the Gammon test is: used to decide
 what it factors it looks at to decide it.
Offences of Strict liability
 Can occur at Common Law and at
Statuary Law
 Deal with issues of social concern and
are designed to protect the publics
health, safety or morals,
Gammon Tests for Strict
Liability
Gammon Hong Kong Ltd V Attorney General Hong Kong
sets out factors to be considered: Presumption in favour if mens rea applies to statutory
offences
 The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by
necessary implication the effect of the words in the statute
 The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is
truly criminal character
 The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is
concerned with an issue of social concern such as public
safety
 Strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law
by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission
of the prohibited act
No defences
 Absolute Liability – Larsenour 1932
 No defence of mistake
 Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah 1999
 No defence of due diligence
 Callow V Tillstone 1900
Why are offences of Strict
Liability Important?
 No mens Rea required- Prince 1875 and Hibbert 1869
 Often regulatory- only 4 at common law (public nuisance, criminal
libel, blasphemous libel, criminal contempt of court)
 In interest of public safety
 Designed to protect society by regulation of activities (health,
safety morals)
 Absolute Liability Larsonneur 1933
 No knowledge of act is not a defence Harlow LBC v Shah and
Shah1993- however Sherras v De Rutzen 1895
 No Fault not a defence Callow V Tillstone (1900)
 Mistake not a defence (Cundy v LE Coco 1884)
 Taking all reasonable steps to prevent offence not a defence.
 However defence of due diligence allowed by parliament
(inconsistent) Defendant must show he has done all with in his
power not to commit offence
Problems





Deciding if offence is one of strict liability
Consistency
Changes in public attitudes e.g homosexuality
Statute may say what mens rea is required
No mention of Mens Rea court will presume
mens rea required, then look at lots of other
points to see if it will stand
 Truly Criminal offences
 Gammon tests
For
 Public should be protected from
unscrupulous traders
 Encourages high standards from
businesses and employers
 Businesses and employers know where
they are
 Courts can deal with cases quickly
Summary
 D must be proved to have done the actus reus (AR)
 Must be a voluntary act on his part (except absolute
liability)
 Mens rea not required for at least part of AR
 Mainly applies in offences set down by statute.
 Offences designed to protect large sectors of the
community.
 E.g. not selling cigarettes to people under 16
 Defence of ‘Due diligence’ may be available
Offences with strict
liability are




Designed to protect the public at large
Protect health, safety and morels
Mainly created by statute
4 at common law (Public nuisance, Criminal libel,
Blasphemous libel, criminal contempt of court)
 Reflect changes in society attitudes
Lemon V Gay News Ltd 1979
Task
Look at the following cases, give brief outline of the
case and explain they key points.
Sweet V Parsley 1969
Storkwain 1986
Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah 1999
Quasi-criminal offences
B V DPP 2000
Blake 1997
Lim Chin Aik V The Queen 1963
Gammon Hong Kong Ltd V Attorney General Hong
Kong
Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay news 1979
Sweet V Parsley 1969
Presumption of mens rea required for all
offences
Storkwain 1986
If section of act in which offence appears
does not mention mens rea then will be
strict liability even if other parts of act state
mens rea is required
Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah 1999
Quasi-criminal offences
Regulatory crimes (not truly criminal) are
more likely to be held offences of strict
liability
B V DPP 2000
Where an offence is punishable by
imprisonment it is less likely that it will be
held to be one of strict liability
Blake 1997
Where the offence involves potential
danger to public health, safety or morals
then it is more likely to be held to be a strict
liability offence
Lim Chin Aik V The Queen 1963
If making the offence one of strict liability
would not help law enforcement then there
is no reason to make the offence one of
strict liability
Gammon Hong Kong Ltd V Attorney
General Hong Kong
Sets out 5 steps to help the Judges decide
if the offence is one of strict liability
Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay news 1979
Blasphemy case not necessary to prove
that defendants intended blasphemy
Sweet V Parsley 1969
 D was a school teacher who let out rooms in her home
to students.
 The students had the property to themselves for the
most part. Although she had a room in the house and
sometimes stayed over night.
 The students were users of cannabis and other drugs.
 D was convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965
of running a premises for the use of illegal drugs.
 The case eventually went to H of L where conviction
overturned. Law Lords decided that direct knowledge
of the illegal drug taking on the premises was required
Callow V Tillstone 1900
 A butcher had contacted a vet to ask his
professional opinion on a piece of meat.
 The vet stated that the meat was fit for
consumption but this was found not to be
untrue.
 Although the butcher had gone to some
trouble to verify the state of the meat he
was still found guilty.
Questions
 Think of three offences which could be strict
liability offences. Why do you think they are
offences of strict liability?
 Would cases prosecuted by RSPCA be truly
criminal or quasi- criminal.
•(strict liability)
 Why is it difficult for Judges to decide if an
offence is one of strict liability.
 Which case gives 5 steps to help Judges
decide if a case is one of strict liability?
 What are the five steps?
Task
James is the landlord of the Fleece Public house,
he has told all staff to ask anyone they
consider to be under 21 for ID before they
serve them. Later on the same night Jane, 17
who has been drinking alcohol in the Fleece,
She is later stopped by police for drunken
behaviour when asked how old she is, she
says 18 but her ID shows she is actually 17.
The police charge the landlord with serving
alcohol to a person under age. Is this an
offence of strict liability? If so explain why.
Which cases help explain your answer.
Task(con’t)
 Upon further enquiry the police discover
that Jane had been asked to provide ID
by the bar staff and she had produced
forged ID which said she was 20 year
old.
 In light of the above is the Landlord guilty
of an offence? Give reasons for your
answer.
 Which cases help justify your answer
Exam Questions
 Critically consider the circumstances in
which the imposition of strict liability is
justified in criminal law (OCR, Unit 2571,
June 2004)
 The law presumes that mens rea is
always required in criminal offences,
unless it is clear that parliament intended
an offence to be one of strict liability.
Discuss (WJEC LW5 June 2005
Extension Task
 Create a table of the cases which have
developed the case law on offences of
strict liability?
 Make notes of the key points of each
case.
 Create a timeline of cases on strict
liability.
Offences of Strict Liability
Which of the following offences will be ones
of strict liability
Causing death by reckless driving
Wearing a seat belt
Driving with due care and attention
Homework
Read Pgs 45-54 of Criminal Law For A2,
Jacqueline Martin, Read hand outs on
Participation for next lesson.
Bring hand out to class
Plenary
 When do the prosecution not have to show
the D had the necessary mens rea .
 How do you know when a case is one of
strict liability
 What will the prosecution need to show for
D to be guilty of an offence of strict liability
 Why do cases of strict liability exist
 Have we met our objectives?