Strict Liabilty

Strict Liability
1
• In General, We need Actus Reas and,
Mens Rea in all types of offences,
• But in Strict Liability Mens Rea is not

required.
2
Just preforming the act is sufficient for
liability.
3
The law here does not care how you did it,or
why you did it.
The Law only cares about the fact that you

did it.
This can be enough for prosecution.
4
• Speeding for example is sufficient for
prosecution.
• Actus reus is speeding, which is enough for
liability.
• You don’t have to show that you intend to
speed.
• Traffic, not wearing a seat belt while
driving, selling a lottery ticket to someone
under 16 years old, even if you thought
he was over 16.
• We never thought these acts were crimes.
5
Why ????
Because it protects the society by keeping

the standards High.
6
• Where did this start ?.
• It started with the industry revolution.

• There was huge growth in factories and
business, and therefore, they had plenty of
health and safety issues around.
• Workers were not protected well back then,
so they had to use criminal law for their
protection.
7
But there were problems with criminal law in
that
1- it was difficult to show that the factory
owners had any intent.
If the prosecution can't show any intent, they

can't prove any criminal liability.
8
Also:
2-People who made decisions about the
law at the magistrate's court, were the
factory owners themselves, and therefor, it
was not likely that they would find
themselves guilty at some point.
9
So, parliament decided that it would
legislate, and remove the issue of intent,
and make the cases of workers protection
as Strict Liability. This resulted in the
improvement of workers safety.
Most of Strict Liability in English Law comes

from Act of Parliament.
That’s how they solved the issue of intent.
10
Ok
THIS WAS HISTORY
WHAT IS THE STATUORY
REQUIREMENT
11
The statuary requirement started in the case of
Sweet Vs Parsley 1970.
A teacher let her cottage to students, and they

grow grass.
She did not know about that.
Q- Should she be held strictly liable for allowing
her premises to be used for drug taking.
At the end, she was found not guilty.
12
Because Drug Act applied in this case, did
not state that it is Strict Liability, so we can
understand that intent is not important.
In other words, the statue must state that

this is Strict Liability.
13
• A later case in 1985, helped in building on
Sweet Vs. Parsley, and it was Gammon
(Hong Kong) LTD V. AG for Hong Kong
In the case the deviating from the approved
plan, which was contrary to the Hong Kong
building protocols.
It had to be decided whether it was important to
prove they knew that their deviation was
material.
It was held that it was not important.
It was considered a strict liability offence, and
they were found guilty.
14
It gave five principles
1-There should be a presumption in law that
mens rea is required before a person can be
held guilty for a criminal offence.
2- The presumption is strong when the
offence is truly criminal in character.
3- The statue applicable must clearly
exclude mens rea.
15
4- When the Statue is concerned with public
safety, and social concerns, then the courts
can possibly make that offence of Strict
Liability.
5- The presumption of mens rea stands,
unless it can also be shown that creation of
Strict Liability can be effective to promote the
objects of the Statue by encouraging greater
vigilance.
16
In Alphacell V Woodward 1972.
The factory owner was convicted of
polluting a river (disconnected pipe) under
the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act
1951.. The appellant was unaware of the
pollution, and it was not alleged that they
had been negligent.
Held:
As a matter of public policy, the offence
was one of strict liability and therefore the
appeal was dismissed, and the conviction
upheld.
17
In Smedley's v Breed 1974.
Smedley's Limited v Breed: HL 1974 The defendant
company had sold a can of peas. A caterpillar was
found in it. Held: Despite having shown that they had
taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of
selling food not to the standard required.
The defendant company was convicted of “selling food
not of the substance demanded by the purchaser”
contrary to s2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 (now
replaced).
18
• Harrow London Borough Council v Shah
(1999)
• The defendants owned a newsagent’s business
where lottery tickets were sold. They had told their
staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years.
One of their staff sold a lottery ticket to a 13-year-
old boy without asking for proof of age. The
salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over
16 years.
• The Divisional Court held that the offence did not
require any mens rea. the defendant was guilty,
even though they had done their best to prevent
this from happening in their shop. the legislation
dealt with an issue of social concern.
19
Also, In Blake Case 1997.
He had an unlicensed radio station. It was
dangers for aviation and public safety,
and that’s why he was held liable.
20
Reasons for Strict Liability
1-Easier to prove. No need to prove mens
rea.
2- Less time in court
3-Encourages compliance with the law.
4-Prevents defenses being raised as an
excuse.
4-Makes regulation straightforward
5-Protects the public.
21

Strict Liabilty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strict Liabilty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strict Liabilty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strict Liability

• But in Strict Liability Mens Rea is not

The Law only cares about the fact that you

This can be enough for prosecution.

Because it protects the society by keeping

• It started with the industry revolution.

If the prosecution can't show any intent, they

Most of Strict Liability in English Law comes

That’s how they solved the issue of intent.

A teacher let her cottage to students, and they

In other words, the statue must state that

You might also like