Strict liability- evaluations

Question 1

What are the strengths of strict liability

Answer 1

1- Raises standards - strict liability is its ability to raise standards and protect the public. Due to the fact that strict liability needs the actus reus and not the necessary mens rea it means that strict liability offences can raise the standard of law specifically where health and safety matters are concerned. This ensures increased safety of the public and means that justice is always served and standards are always high in regards to big business. Some examples of this can be seen in the case of Callow v Tilstone this case featured the sale of unfit meat which was clearly a matter of health and safety, this resulted in the D being liable even though they attempted to do everything possible to prevent this. Other cases such as Alphacell v Woodward and the case of gammon confirm why strict liability is necessary in the English legal system in order to protect the public and ensure high standards.

2. Acts as a deterrent- - Where a person can be liable just with proof of the actus reus the law puts pressure on people to avoid the offence or if the offence is committed to put matters right. A successful prosecution has a powerful deterrent effect on others. Businesses do not want negative publicity and possible impact on their profits.
3. Public protection- Public protection - The Utilitarian argument in the 19th century was ‘the greatest good of the greatest number.’ So even though strict liability may be harsh on individual offenders, it is outweighed by the benefit to society as a whole. Offences are more likely to be strict liability if potential victims are vulnerable such as the public having little choice over for example.

Question 2

What are some weaknesses of strict liability

Answer 2

1. Unfair-Strict liability offences are unfair which acts as a disadvantage because it means that people are being held liable for things without proving that they had intention(mens rea) , this goes against the fundamental principle of the rule of law innocent till proven guilty thus creating a barrier towards true justice. If a person has exercised all reasonable care but is still liable that is an ineffective use of law. This can be illustrated in the previous case of Callow v Tillstone where although the D sold unfit meat he done everything necessary to have the meat checked out. This can be further shown in the case of R V Howells where the defendant was liable despite being unaware that he required a license and had no intention to use the gun as a weapon. Therefore proving that the offence of strict liability acts as a disadvantage in the CJS because it reinforces unfairness and prevents justice while going against the principle of the rule of law.
2. Stigma - there is a stigma that is held with some criminal offence and the lack of proof of fault increases this stigma and can cause damage to a person’s reputation or business. This suggests that fault should always be proven to establish criminal liability to prevent an innocent person from being help to the same stigma as someone who may have committed an offence such as murder. for example Sweet v Parsley (1970). Or in R v G (2008) where a 15 year old boy had consensual sex with a 12 year old girl and he honestly believed her to be 15. He was convicted with the rape of a child under the age of 13 contrary to The Sexual Offences Act 2003. His belief as to her age was irrelevant.
3. No real deterrent n 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, Alphacell v Woodward, PSGB v Storkwain. Also speeding, which is arguably a crime which is committed more than any other, is one of strict liability. If strict liability was an effective deterrent then we would have no speeding cars on the roads.

Question 3

What are some reforms of strict liability

Answer 3

• The Law Commission in its Draft Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill 1978 requires that Parliament should state if it is creating a strict liability offence or not. If not the courts should assume that mens rea is needed

-