Strict Liability

Question 1

Initial Presumption

Answer 1

Presumption of MR in every offence which is displacedby the language of the statute or byits subject matter.
Sweet & Parlsey [1970]- Lord Reid “Parl norm does not & should not intend, to make criminals out of thos that are not blameworth & do not warrant that label”

Question 2

Overriding presumption

Answer 2

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] A

1. The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime; or
2. The crime is one of social concern; or
3. The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or
4. The offence carries a small penalty.

Question 3

The offence carries a small penalty.

Answer 3

Generally wher the offence carrises small penalty it indicates it is not a true crime and therfore only one of strict liability- Williams [2011]

Question 4

The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime

Answer 4

Sweet v Parsley [1970] - lady rented house to students, students smoked weed in house w/o her knowledge. She charged w/ “concerend in mgmt of premises used for purpose of smoked cannabis”. HOL squashed conviction.

Question 5

Justification

Answer 5

• Protection of the public
  Strict liability raises standards where the health and safety of the public is at stake and forces those in a position of responsibility to take extra precautions.
  e.g. Possession of firearms - R v Howells

Question 6

Justification

Answer 6

Promoting enforcement of the law
o Strict liability ensures more convictions are secured and does not allow people to escape liability through a fabricated account of their state of mind.

Question 7

Arguments against

Injustice

Answer 7

o A person may be liable where they are not at fault and have exercised all reasonable care. This offends the natural sense of justice as illustrated in the following cases:
 Callow v Tillstone - The butcher was liable despite doing everything possible to have the meat checked out.

Question 8

Stigma

Answer 8

• Any criminal offence carries a stigma and needs to be declared for employment purposes. It can cause immense damage to a person’s or a business’ reputation and therefore proof of fault should always be a requirement in establishing criminal liability.

Question 9

Does not necessarily act as a deterrent

Answer 9

• In order to act as a deterrent, a person must have knowledge of what they are doing is wrong before being able to take steps to prevent it. In many cases the defendant is unaware of the circumstances leading to liability – see Callow v Tillstone, R v Howell