15 Strict Liability

Question 1

Why is there no need for mens Rea in strict liability offences?

Answer 1

• they are not as morally culpable although this can cause harsh results as in Barnfather (2003)
• this is why nearly half of all offences are ones of strict liability

Question 2

Why was Barnfather somewhat controversial?

Answer 2

-the defendant is guilty if they committed the actus reus even if they were acting reasonably

Question 3

What is a classic example of strict liability?

Answer 3

• Harrow LBC v Shah (2000)

- selling of a lottery ticket to a person under the age of 16

Question 4

What if there is no reference to mens Rea in a statute?

Answer 4

-it will be presumed that the offence requires mens Rea unless it expressly says not to make this presumption

Question 5

In what case was the wording of the statute very strict?

Answer 5

-R v G (2008) which made sex with a child under the age of 13 statutory rape

Question 6

When will a court not presume mens Rea?

Answer 6

• when other sections of the statute refer explicitly to mens Rea but others do not it is clearer that there is not meant to be mens Rea
• where other acts covering similar areas indicate that there should be no mens Rea

Question 7

What is required for a strict liability offence?

Answer 7

-simply commission of the prohibited conduct, not blameworthiness or other mens Rea