Strict Liability Strict Liability General Strict liability offences

Strict Liability

Strict Liability - General Strict liability offences are those that do not require Mens Rea The definition of the crime is the Actus Reus only Merely performing the act is sufficient to make a person guilty Usually they are regulatory and designed to protect the public Not seen as truly criminal in nature E. g. many motoring and health and safety offences Strict liability offences originally created to make it easier to prove guilt for business related offences • History – in 19 th Century, Industrial Revolution, there were many abuses of factory workers. But very few successful prosecutions as showing MR of factory owners was very difficult. Also many Magistrates were also factory owners so many thought they would be tempted to find factory owners not guilty and use lack of MR as their reason. Once MR did not need to be proved, conviction rates increased and so did factory safety • •

Deciding if an offence is one of Strict Liability • Vast majority are statutory offences (in Acts of Parliament) • When statute uses Mens Rea terms like “knowingly” or “recklessly” then it is not strict liability and MR is required • Newer statutes tend to say if the offence is one of strict liability • When it is not clear, it is up to courts to interpret the statute and decide whether MR is needed or not

Courts Interpretation when Statutes do not include words indicating MR but do not explicitly state they are of Strict Liability • Sweet v Parsley – decided that the offence of being involved in the management of premises which were used for the smoking of cannabis was not an offence of strict liability under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Miss Sweet, a teacher, let her cottage to students and only visited rarely to collect post and see that things were in order. She kept a separate locked room for her use during her visits. She knew nothing of the drug taking and was acquitted when it was decided that an element of MR was needed for this offence as real social stigma was attached to this offence • Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong – Held there is a presumption that MR is required particularly when the offence is “truly criminal”. Should only be strict liability when there is an issue of social concern or public safety and it will encourage a greater vigilance

Examples of Strict Liability • Callow v Tillstone – butcher convicted of selling contaminated meat even though he asked a vet to examine the meat and was assured by the vet that it was fit for human consumption • Alphacell v Woodward – Papermakers caused polluted water to be discharged into a river due to a blockage. Company had alarm systems and regular maintenance and inspection programmes but could not predict when a blockage would occur. Company found guilty and charged £ 20 • Smedleys v Breed – 1 tin of peas out of millions produced by Ds contained a caterpillar. Ds convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 even though they had taken all reasonable care • London Borough of Harrow v Shah – court held that offence of selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16 was a strict liability offence as the offence was not truly criminal but dealt with a matter of social concern (gambling by young people)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Strict Liability Advantages Disadvantages • Help protect society by promoting greater care over matters of public safety – encourages higher standards of hygiene in processing and selling food; makes sure businesses are run properly • Easier to enforce as there is no need to prove MR • Saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty • Makes people guilty when they are not blameworthy • Even those who have taken all possible care will be found guilty and punished