Strict Liability
Strict Liability The mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus.
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) A lottery ticket was sold to someone underage. In this case, the defendant was
guilty just because the ticket was sold to the underage person.
Arguments For Arguments Against
● It helps to protect society by promoting greater care in ● It imposes liability on people who are not blameworthy.
matters of public safety - R v Blake (1997).
● Those who are unaware of risks may be guilty.
● Encourages high standards in practices such as hygiene -
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972). ● There is no evidence that it improves standards.
● Easier to enforce. ● The imposition of strict liability is contrary to human rights.
● Saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty. ● Some strict liability offences carry a social stigma.
● Lack of blameworthy taken into account when sentencing.
● Easier to convict people.
Strict Liability The mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus.
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) A lottery ticket was sold to someone underage. In this case, the defendant was
guilty just because the ticket was sold to the underage person.
Arguments For Arguments Against
● It helps to protect society by promoting greater care in ● It imposes liability on people who are not blameworthy.
matters of public safety - R v Blake (1997).
● Those who are unaware of risks may be guilty.
● Encourages high standards in practices such as hygiene -
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972). ● There is no evidence that it improves standards.
● Easier to enforce. ● The imposition of strict liability is contrary to human rights.
● Saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty. ● Some strict liability offences carry a social stigma.
● Lack of blameworthy taken into account when sentencing.
● Easier to convict people.
