Strict Liability
- A strict liability offence is an offence where mens rea is not required in respect of at
least one aspect of the actus reus
- It first came about in the 19th Century
- Woodrow (1846) - D was convicted of having adulterated tobacco in his possession.
He did not know it was adulterated. The judge said he was guilty
- regardless.
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
Generally, for SL offences it must be proved that D carried out the AR of the crime voluntarily
E.g in Storkwain providing the prescriptions
Absolute liability
● However in some cases where the AR does not have to be voluntary these are Absolute
Liability cases
● No MR is required at all for the offence and no need for the MR to be voluntary
● Involve ‘status offences’- the AR is a ‘state of affairs’
● D is liable due to being ‘found in a certain situation
● These types of offences are rare
● Larsonneur (1933)
● Winzar (1983)
- The court will always start with the presumption that an offence requires mens rea
- S.55 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
R v Prince
R v Hibbert
- As discussed, the AR must be proved and D’s conduct regarding the AR must be voluntary
- However D can be guilty if his voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence
- EVEN if D was completely blameless in respect of the consequence
‘No Fault’
D can be guilty if his voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence
Calstone v TIlstone (1900)
No defence of due diligence
- There is no set defence of due diligence
- For some SL offences parl allow this defence but there is no pattern to this
- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
- A strict liability offence is an offence where mens rea is not required in respect of at
least one aspect of the actus reus
- It first came about in the 19th Century
- Woodrow (1846) - D was convicted of having adulterated tobacco in his possession.
He did not know it was adulterated. The judge said he was guilty
- regardless.
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
Generally, for SL offences it must be proved that D carried out the AR of the crime voluntarily
E.g in Storkwain providing the prescriptions
Absolute liability
● However in some cases where the AR does not have to be voluntary these are Absolute
Liability cases
● No MR is required at all for the offence and no need for the MR to be voluntary
● Involve ‘status offences’- the AR is a ‘state of affairs’
● D is liable due to being ‘found in a certain situation
● These types of offences are rare
● Larsonneur (1933)
● Winzar (1983)
- The court will always start with the presumption that an offence requires mens rea
- S.55 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
R v Prince
R v Hibbert
- As discussed, the AR must be proved and D’s conduct regarding the AR must be voluntary
- However D can be guilty if his voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence
- EVEN if D was completely blameless in respect of the consequence
‘No Fault’
D can be guilty if his voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence
Calstone v TIlstone (1900)
No defence of due diligence
- There is no set defence of due diligence
- For some SL offences parl allow this defence but there is no pattern to this
- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
