Strict Liability (including flipped law)
Strict liability is the idea that a person can be liable without MR
Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Criminal Liability
NATURE OF STRICT LIABILITY
They are often regulatory in nature. This means that they often concern matters that are not seen as ‘truly criminal’
These ‘quasi crimes’ often concern breaches of regulations such as those preventing pollution in Alphacell v
Woodward or preventing the sale of lottery tickets to children in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah or speeding
SOURCES:
Often come from statute law
Health and safety at work act 1974
Provision and use of work equipment regulations 1988
BUT can also come from common law
E.G Blasphemy -> R v Lemon; R v Gay News -> The defendant newspaper published a poem describing homosexual
acts carried out on the body of Christ after death. The appellants were convicted of blasphemous libel, and
challenged this.
It was held blasphemous libel required the prosecution to show that the defendant had published material of the
necessary character; they did not have to show intention to blaspheme
In R v Prince D was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 from her father against his will under
s55 of the OAPA 1861 even though the girl went with him willingly
It has held that D did not know she was under 16, having had reasonable grounds to believe she was 18. The court
took the view that no mens rea was required in respect of knowledge of the girl’s age, so this part of the offence is
strict liability.
Most strict liability crimes require the actus reus to have been committed voluntarily
Example: Stockwain -> D supplied drugs for which the prescriptions had been forged, and was charged with the
offence of supplying drugs without prescription under s58 (2) of the medicines act
It was held at HOL confirmed D’s conviction even though D was not dishonest and had not intended, been reckless or
even negligent as to committing this crime. D had voluntarily committed the actus reus, which was enough as the
crime was one of strict liability
State of affair crimes -> this means that D is guilty of an offence if he is responsible for a situation
E.G Being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink of drugs
contrary to s4(2) of Road Traffic Act 1988
It does not matter what D does or does not do whilst in charge of the vehicle – he is criminally liable as he is
responsible for the state of affairs
Crimes of absolute liability – D has been found guilty of a state of affairs crime even where he has not acted
voluntarily
E.G R v Larsonneur – D was a French citizen who was required to leave the UK. On arrival in the Republic of Ireland,
she was deported back to the UK and handed over to the British police at Holyhead. Charged under the Aliens Order
1920
The issue of mens rea – when deciding if an offence is one of strict liability or not, the starting point is that the courts
assume that MR is required for a criminal offence. If the statute includes words like ‘intentionally’ or recklessly’ then
the courts will also interpret the statute as requiring mens rea
Strict liability is the idea that a person can be liable without MR
Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Criminal Liability
NATURE OF STRICT LIABILITY
They are often regulatory in nature. This means that they often concern matters that are not seen as ‘truly criminal’
These ‘quasi crimes’ often concern breaches of regulations such as those preventing pollution in Alphacell v
Woodward or preventing the sale of lottery tickets to children in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah or speeding
SOURCES:
Often come from statute law
Health and safety at work act 1974
Provision and use of work equipment regulations 1988
BUT can also come from common law
E.G Blasphemy -> R v Lemon; R v Gay News -> The defendant newspaper published a poem describing homosexual
acts carried out on the body of Christ after death. The appellants were convicted of blasphemous libel, and
challenged this.
It was held blasphemous libel required the prosecution to show that the defendant had published material of the
necessary character; they did not have to show intention to blaspheme
In R v Prince D was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 from her father against his will under
s55 of the OAPA 1861 even though the girl went with him willingly
It has held that D did not know she was under 16, having had reasonable grounds to believe she was 18. The court
took the view that no mens rea was required in respect of knowledge of the girl’s age, so this part of the offence is
strict liability.
Most strict liability crimes require the actus reus to have been committed voluntarily
Example: Stockwain -> D supplied drugs for which the prescriptions had been forged, and was charged with the
offence of supplying drugs without prescription under s58 (2) of the medicines act
It was held at HOL confirmed D’s conviction even though D was not dishonest and had not intended, been reckless or
even negligent as to committing this crime. D had voluntarily committed the actus reus, which was enough as the
crime was one of strict liability
State of affair crimes -> this means that D is guilty of an offence if he is responsible for a situation
E.G Being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink of drugs
contrary to s4(2) of Road Traffic Act 1988
It does not matter what D does or does not do whilst in charge of the vehicle – he is criminally liable as he is
responsible for the state of affairs
Crimes of absolute liability – D has been found guilty of a state of affairs crime even where he has not acted
voluntarily
E.G R v Larsonneur – D was a French citizen who was required to leave the UK. On arrival in the Republic of Ireland,
she was deported back to the UK and handed over to the British police at Holyhead. Charged under the Aliens Order
1920
The issue of mens rea – when deciding if an offence is one of strict liability or not, the starting point is that the courts
assume that MR is required for a criminal offence. If the statute includes words like ‘intentionally’ or recklessly’ then
the courts will also interpret the statute as requiring mens rea
