strict liability

Question 1

what is strict liability?

Answer 1

an offence that does not require mens rea

Question 2

gammon (hong kong) v attorney general 1985

Answer 2

facts: builders breached regulations
there were guidelines established (gammon factors) under this case (certain factors that displace the presumption that mens rea is required):
1. regulatory offence
2. issue of social concern
3. the wording of the act
4. the smallness of the penalty

Question 3

regulatory offence

Answer 3

a regulatory offence is one which no moral issues is involved. in gammon it was stated that the presumption that men’s tea is required was less strong for regulatory offences

Question 4

issues of certain concern

Answer 4

according to gammon, the men’s rea can be rebutted if the creation of strict liability will promote potential offenders to take extra precautions against committing the prohibited act
FOR EXAMPLE
cases like murder and rape (Sweet v Parsley 1970) would not be considered as strict liability
HOWEVER
offences like selling a lottery ticket are an underage person (harrow london borough council v shah 1999) is

Question 5

the wording of the act

Answer 5

Gammon states that the presumption that mens rea is required for a criminal offence can be rebutted if the words of a statute suggest strict liability is intended
FOR EXAMPLE IN sweet v parsley 1970

Question 6

the smallness of the penalty

Answer 6

strict liability is most often imposed for offences which carry a relatively small maximum penalty, and it appears that the higher maximum penalty, the less likely it is that the courts will impose strict liability

Question 7

arguments in favour of strict liability

Answer 7

deterrent value - will put people off certain crimes
difficultly of proving the mens rea - this difficultly is taken away
no threat to liberty - in many strict liability cases the penalty is a fine, so individual liberty is not generally under threat

Question 8

arguments against strict liability

Answer 8

the argument that strict liability should be enforced because mens tea would be too difficult to prove is morally doubtful

inconsistent application of strict liability - down to statutory interpretation