Strict Liability

Question 1

What is a strict liability offence?

Answer 1

Prosecution doesnt have to prove a mens rea element of the crime

Question 2

What was the old famous strict liability offence

Answer 2

Unlawful carnal knowledge

Question 3

Unlawful carnal knowledge explain actus reus of the offence

Answer 3

Engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl- conduct
Who was under the age of 15- circumstance

Question 4

What is ther main thing the prosecution have to probve inrelation to unlawful carnal knowledge

Answer 4

that the conduct was deliberate and voluntary.
If he was sleepwalking- defence of automatism

Question 5

What do the prosecution not have to prove in relation to unlawful carnal knowledge

Answer 5

that the accused knew that the girl wasnt over the age of 15/ reckless as to whether she was 15 or not

Question 6

What common law offence did the Englisgh common law courts establish as strict liability but Ireland said was not
State relevant cases

Answer 6

Whitehouse v Lemon and gay nes
Blasphemy
Corway v Independent News

Question 7

What was the traditional approach for mens rea in concern to criminal contempt of coourt

Answer 7

Traditionally, no mens rea (intent) was required for a conviction of criminal contempt of court—just publishing contemptuous material was enough.

Question 8

What is believed to be the irish approach to criminal contempt of court
State the case

Answer 8

Kelly v O’Neill,

while the offence is traditionally considered absolute, the Irish courts might require mens rea if no modern authority says otherwise.

Question 9

Where are most strict liability offences created by

Answer 9

Stature

Question 10

What is the presumption of offences being newly created by statute

Answer 10

IF thr statute does not say whether mens rea is required or not, there is a presumption that the actus reus needs a corresponding mens rea

Question 11

How can the presumption of mens rea be displaced
Name case

Answer 11

Sherras v De rutzen
Considering the words of the statute and the subject matter of the offence

Question 12

What are the factors that the court considers when determining whether an offence is strict liability?

Answer 12

The object of the legislation
The seriousness of the offence
the wording/other provisions of the legislation
legislative antecedents

Question 13

What must the object of the legislation be in order to be considered a strict liability offence?
MAin aim:

Answer 13

MAtter of social concern
Public health
Public safety

Main aim: To encourage greater vigilance on part of potential offenders.

Question 14

List the ,main cases on the
Object of legislation
in relation to strict liability offences

Answer 14

Adam v Dublin Trawmways

Maguire v Shannon Fisheries board

Shannon Fisheries board v Canan CC

Alphacell v Woodward

Question 15

Adam v Dublkin Tramways

Answer 15

FActs: Concerned a regulation to do with the prohibition of overloading trains.
Def argued that he didnt know the leg was being breached and therefore shouldnt be luable.

Held: The offence was one of strict liability.
Object of the legislation was to protect the public from the danger of trains being overloaded.
This can only be acheieved if the action is prohibited and the perpetrator is punished irrespective of his knowlege of the breach

Question 16

Maguire v Shannon Fisheries Board

Answer 16

Facts:Maguire owned a piggery with an automated feeding system.

A pipe in the system fractured, causing pollution to a nearby river.

He was prosecuted under the Fisheries Act

Was the offence one of strict liability?

Held:

Yes, it was a strict liability offence.

Lynch J. held that river pollution is a public nuisance, and strict liability encourages vigilance among potential polluters.

The absence of intent or negligence did not excuse the pollution.

Question 17

Shannon Fisheries Board v Cavan CC

Answer 17

Facts: Cavan County Council operated a sewage-treatment plant.

Due to a lack of funding from the Department of the Environment, it couldn’t be upgraded.

The Council had no alternative but to discharge raw sewage into a nearby river.

Held:

Causing pollution, even without negligence, is sufficient for liability.

Introducing mens rea into such environmental offences is unnecessary and undesirable.

In any event, mens rea was present because the discharge was knowingly done.

Question 18

The seriousness of the offence
State cases

Answer 18

Sweet v Parsley
M. Aguire v Shannon Fisheries Board
Adam v Dublin TRamways

Question 19

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 19

A crime that is considered to be truly crininal as opposed to regulatory will generally require proof of mens rea

Question 20

MAguire v Shannon Fisheries Board

Answer 20

The offence was regulatory in character rather than being criminal

Question 21

Adam v Dublin Tramways

Answer 21

The acts were not considered to be criminal but rather, theyre prohibited under penalty due to the aspect of public interests

Question 22

State a really big case that established that seriious offences cannot negate a mens rea

Answer 22

CC v Ors- found that unlawful carnal knowledge was unconstitutional because it could allow someone who was not mentally guilty to face the death penalty.

Question 23

Wording of the provisions of the legislation

State case

Answer 23

Adams v Dublin TArmways

No use of the words intention/recklessness/negligence in the statute is indicative of mens rea usually not being required

Question 24

LEgeslative antecedents
State case

Answer 24

CC v Ors

Facts:

The applicant (CC) was charged with four counts of unlawful carnal knowledge

The complainant was under 15 years of age.

CC claimed he made a bona fide mistake about the girl’s age, believing she was over 15.

The trial judge (Smyth J.) held the offence was one of strict liability—meaning mistake as to age was no defence.

The case went to the Supreme Court, which initially upheld this interpretation.

Held:
✅ Majority (Geoghegan, Hardiman, Fennelly, McCracken JJ):

Strict liability applied—no defence of mistake as to age.

The legislative history showed that the Oireachtas deliberately removed the defence of mistake for girls under 15.

However, the majority also held that this interpretation of s.1(1) was unconstitutional:

It criminalised a mentally innocent person (no mens rea), violating rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution (liberty, dignity, and good name).

The law failed to respect fundamental rights and imposed life imprisonment without proving moral guilt.

❌ Dissent (Denham J.):

Denham J. argued that s.1(1) should be interpreted as requiring mens rea.

Therefore, a mistake as to age could be a defence.

This interpretation would avoid the constitutional issue by preserving fairness and preventing unjust punishment.

Question 25

What are the main points to know about cc v ors

Answer 25

Strict liability in serious offences (like statutory rape) that lack a mental element is unconstitutional in Irish law. The absence of a mens rea requirement in s.1(1) of the 1935 Act violated constitutional rights to liberty and dignity. The Court followed the principle from Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, recognising that serious criminal offences should generally require proof of moral blameworthiness.

Question 26

WHAT CASE provides a good summary of strict liability Provide the summary too

Answer 26

Gammon v AG of Hongkong The law usually requires mens rea (a guilty mind) for a crime. This is especially true for serious crimes. Even for crimes made by statute, mens rea is assumed unless the law clearly says otherwise. The only exception is when the law deals with public safety or social concerns. But even then, strict liability (no mens rea) is only allowed if it helps prevent the offence by making people more careful.

Question 27

Is the defence of reasonable care valid in Ireland?

Answer 27

Irish criminal law do not allow a defence of reasonable care. Even if the accused took all reasonable precautions, they can still be convicted.

Question 28

State cases in relation to the defence of reasonable care

Answer 28

MAguire v Shannon Fisheries Board Adam v Dublin Tramways Keane Dissent in Shannon Fisheries Board v Cavan CC

Question 29

MAguire v Shannon Fisheries Board

Answer 29

Even if reasonable care is taken, strict liability applies, but the penalty might be reduced

Question 30

Adam v Dublin Tramways

Answer 30

Evidence of precautions (e.g., instructing employees) can influence sentencing, not liability.

Question 31

Keane Dissent in Shannon Fisheries Board v Cavan CC

Answer 31

Argued that a defence of reasonable care should be allowed. Burden on accused to prove this on balance of probabilities. However absolute liability offences cannot allow a defence of reasonableness

Question 32

Strict liability and European Law

Answer 32

Article 6.2 ECHR – Presumption of Innocence Salabiaku v France (1988): Not automatically a violation. It depends on how the law is applied. Presumption of innocence must be balanced with public interest.