Strict liability

Question 1

What is a strict liability offence?

Answer 1

One where mens rea is not required as to at least one element of the actus reus.

Question 2

Give the facts of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986).

Answer 2

D supplied medicines without a prescription, the prescription handed to him was fraudulent.

Question 3

What does the case of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) demonstrate?

Answer 3

When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.

Question 4

Give the facts of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985)

Answer 4

The defendants were charged with deviating from building regulations in a material way from the approved plan.

Question 5

What does the case of B v DPP (2000) demonstrate?

Answer 5

When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.

Question 6

Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for a strict liability offence?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

What is an absolute liability offence?

Answer 7

One where no mens rea is required at all.

Question 8

Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for an absolute liability offence?

Answer 8

No.

Question 9

Give the facts of Larsonneur (1933).

Answer 9

D was from a foreign country and had been ordered to leave the UK so she went to Ireland. However, the Irish police found her and deported her to England and was convicted of ‘being an alien whom leave to land in the UK was refused’.

Question 10

Give the facts of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983).

Answer 10

D was drunk and was taken to hospital on a stretcher, where they found he was not ill so he was told to leave. He was found in a corridor, so the police were called and he was taken outside and charged with being found drunk in a public highway.

Question 11

Which presumption can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence?

Answer 11

The presumption that mens rea is required when interpreting statute.

Question 12

Give the facts of R v G (2008).

Answer 12

G, 15, had sex with a girl who he thought was 15 but she was actually 12. He was found guilty of rape of a child under 13.

Question 13

What does the case of R v G (2008) demonstrated?

Answer 13

The presumption in favour of mens rea can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence.

Question 14

Can a defendant be convicted if their voluntary act accidentally led to a prohibited consequence?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Give the facts of Callow v Tillstone (1900).

Answer 15

A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption which the vet certified it was. However, it was not fit for human consumption, so the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale.

Question 16

What is the defence of due diligence?

Answer 16

The defence is that the defendant has done all they can to avoid committing an offence.

Question 17

When is the defence of due diligence available?

Answer 17

There is no sensible pattern as to when the defence is available.

Question 18

Give the facts of Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and Shah (1999).

Answer 18

The defendants owned a newsagents and frequently warned their staff not to sell lottery tickets to minors. One of their staff did so, and the defendants were convicted.

Question 19

Which defence is not available for strict liability offences?

Answer 19

The defence of mistake.

Question 20

Give the facts of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884).

Answer 20

D was charged with selling intoxicated liquor to a drunken person, when in fact the customer did nothing to display any insobriety.

Question 21

Give the facts of Sherras v De Rutzen (1895).

Answer 21

D was charged with supplying alcohol to a police officer on duty, but the police officer had taken his ‘on-duty’ armband off so there was no way the defendant could have known. He was not convicted.

Question 22

What are the three common law strict liability offences?

Answer 22

Public nuisance, criminal libel and outraging public decency.

Question 23

Give the facts of Gibson and Sylveire (1991).

Answer 23

Gibson made an art exhibit featuring earrings made of freeze-dried human foetuses. Sylveire put the exhibit on display. Both were convicted of outraging public decency.

Question 24

Give the facts of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News (1979).

Answer 24

A poem was published, describing homosexual acts done to Christ after his death and his alleged acts during his life. The editor and publisher were convicted of blasphemy.

Question 25

Which offence used to be a common law strict liability offence?

Answer 25

Blasphemous libel.

Question 26

Which offence is now a statutory strict liability offence?

Answer 26

Criminal contempt of court.

Question 27

Of what nature are most strict liability offences?

Answer 27

Regulatory.

Question 28

What is a regulatory offence?

Answer 28

One in which no real moral issue is involved.

Question 29

What are the five Gammon tests?

Answer 29

1. There is a presumption that mens rea is required.
2. The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the words of the statute.
3. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character.
4. The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety.
5. The presumption should only be displaced if this will encourage greater vigilance against the commission of the prohibited act.

Question 30

If the section in question is silent as to mens rea, yet other sections of the Act use mens rea words, what is the offence likely to be?

Answer 30

A strict liability offence.

Question 31

If the section in question is silent as to a defence of due diligence, yet other sections of the Act allow it, what is the offence likely to be?

Answer 31

A strict liability offence.

Question 32

Give five arguments for strict liability.

Answer 32

1. Prevents danger to the public by encouraging greater vigilance.
2. Easier to enforce and get a conviction for.
3. Saves court time.
4. Defence of due diligence can be provided where appropriate.
5. Lack of blame can be taken into account when sentencing.

Question 33

Give five arguments against strict liability.

Answer 33

1. Imposes guilt on those who are not blameworthy.
2. Imposes guilt on those who are unaware of risks.
3. There is no evidence that imposition of strict liability improves standards.
4. Could be contrary to human rights.
5. Social stigma is attached to some offences.

Question 34

Give three proposals for reform.

Answer 34

1. Making it clear if the offence is strict liability or not in statute.
2. Every strict liability offence should carry the defence of due diligence.
3. Strict liability offences should never be punishable by imprisonment.