AS law02 - Strict Liability

Strict liability - these only need actus reus and no mens rea

Criteria for strict liability:

• Gammon Ltd v Attorney Genereal for HK 1985
  • pressume you need actus reus and mens rea
  • is offence truly criminal?
  • statute must clearly exclude mens rea
  • presumption can be displaced in issue of social concern or safety

• Provides basic safety to public - Smedleys v Breed 1974 (catterpillar in peas; goes against statute)

• Easier convictions with no mens rea  - speeding tickets

• created during industrial revolution to convict factory owners

• straightforward and clear regulations - Alphacell v Woodward 1972 (clearing floor after factory spillage)

• Quasi - crimes (not truly criminal) - Shah v London BC of Harrow (sold lottery ticket to an underage buyer)

• Acts as a deterent - R v Blake 1997 (unlicensed radio station)

• Words in statue must imply strict liability!
  • Reckless or Knowingly shows mens rea thus not strict liability

• Truly criminal or merely regulatory?
  • all crimes need mens rea unless stated - Sweet V Parsley 1970 (drugs being smoked in a cottage that was being let; statute required MR thus no strict liability)

• Examples of strict liability
  • traffic offences
  • food safety
  • public disorders
  • possession of a weapon
  • health and safety

Advantages of strict liability

• easy to prove
• less conviction time
• protects the public
• encourages compliance
• straightforward regulations

Disadvantages of strict liability

• no evidence of compliance due to strict liability (outside factors?)
• unfairity due to no mens rea?