Criminal: Strict Liability
Define: Offences of strict liability are where a defendant will be liable for an offence simply by committing the actus reus, no mens rea is needed.
Harrow LBC v Shah: Held committing the actus reus of selling a lottery ticket to a minor was enough, it didn't matter that the mens rea wasn't present.
Statutory Presumption: The courts will always to and presume that an offence requires mens rea. The first approach is to find words within the act of Parliament to indicate that mens rea is present. These words are intention, recklessness, wilfully and knowingly.
Common Law Presumption: If the act doesn't indicate words of mens rea then the courts will presume that mens rea is required for truly criminal offences.
Sweet v Parsley: Held where a section of the act is silent as to mens rea the courts will presume that mens rea is required for truly criminal offences.
B v DPP: Held the presumption of mens rea is stronger the more serious the offence.
Justifications For:
Smedleys v Breed: Held strict liability was found in this regulatory offence to encourage higher standards of hygiene.
R v Blake: Held there was no presumption of mens rea where there are issues of social concern and public safety.
Harrow LBC v Shah: Held committing the actus reus of selling a lottery ticket to a minor was enough, it didn't matter that the mens rea wasn't present.
Statutory Presumption: The courts will always to and presume that an offence requires mens rea. The first approach is to find words within the act of Parliament to indicate that mens rea is present. These words are intention, recklessness, wilfully and knowingly.
Common Law Presumption: If the act doesn't indicate words of mens rea then the courts will presume that mens rea is required for truly criminal offences.
Sweet v Parsley: Held where a section of the act is silent as to mens rea the courts will presume that mens rea is required for truly criminal offences.
B v DPP: Held the presumption of mens rea is stronger the more serious the offence.
Justifications For:
- It helps to protect the public by promoting greater care over matters of health and safety. (Alphacell v Woodward).
- It encourages higher standards of hygiene in processing and selling food. (Smedleys v Breed).
- It makes sure businesses run properly.
- It is easier to prove as there is no need to prove mens rea so it saves the courts time as people will be more likely to plead guilty.
- Protects the public. (R v Blake).
Smedleys v Breed: Held strict liability was found in this regulatory offence to encourage higher standards of hygiene.
R v Blake: Held there was no presumption of mens rea where there are issues of social concern and public safety.
Comments
Post a Comment