PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENCES AND STRICT LIABILITY
Questions
1) Which are the strongest arguments in favour of strict liability? Which are the
strongest arguments against it? In the end, do you think that strict liability is
ever justified?
AGAINST:
o For example in the Pharmaceutical case (in crim lecture with Ramsay)
wherein the pharmacist provided someone with controlled drugs because the
person had shown proof of a (very professionally forged) prescription signed
by a qualified doctor, even though the judges agreed that the prescription was
excellently forged and that many would have been fooled by it, they still held
the pharmacist liable, which for many would seem unfair because they were
on their side and still held them liable just because of one single law that
prohibits the providing of controlled drugs to someone who doesn’t have a
legitimate prescription according to law.
o Strict liability may disregard the true intentions someone may have and can
even put intoxication aside where it is involuntary.
FOR:
o Deterrence against certain crimes.
o MR can be very hard to prove sometimes so some offences need to simply be
proven without looking at what someone was thinking as some people will not
tell you. This links to keeping public security alive.
o Although law can be subjective, some crimes are accepted by a very large
majority due to the ethical and moral side behind it, so for example, most will
agree that it is a major criminal offence to rape a baby. The baby is innocent
and has not developed into a human that can think for itself and has already
lost its virginity to an adult that should have known better, so there is a strict
liability element here which supports the idea of strict liability.
o A person may be more dangerous because of their intention so strict liability
stops people before the act is committed.
CONCLUSION: Should strict liability ever be justified?
o Strict liability does have defences, differentiate this from the MR.
o Does not violate presumption of evidence. Links more to individual autonomy,
the idea that you should be liable for something alongside your MR.
o What is being presumed is that D’s honest intentions can mean they are not
held liable.
2) Andrew Simester has argued that convicting someone for a strict liability
offence, when the label of the offence is perceived by the public as stigmatic,
amounts to moral defamation by the state. This is because the conviction
consists in attributing responsibility for that offence without having
established that the individual acted culpably. Do you agree with this
argument?
To know more, read Andrew Simester, ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’ in A. Simester
(ed.) Appraising Strict Liability (OUP 2005).
Questions
1) Which are the strongest arguments in favour of strict liability? Which are the
strongest arguments against it? In the end, do you think that strict liability is
ever justified?
AGAINST:
o For example in the Pharmaceutical case (in crim lecture with Ramsay)
wherein the pharmacist provided someone with controlled drugs because the
person had shown proof of a (very professionally forged) prescription signed
by a qualified doctor, even though the judges agreed that the prescription was
excellently forged and that many would have been fooled by it, they still held
the pharmacist liable, which for many would seem unfair because they were
on their side and still held them liable just because of one single law that
prohibits the providing of controlled drugs to someone who doesn’t have a
legitimate prescription according to law.
o Strict liability may disregard the true intentions someone may have and can
even put intoxication aside where it is involuntary.
FOR:
o Deterrence against certain crimes.
o MR can be very hard to prove sometimes so some offences need to simply be
proven without looking at what someone was thinking as some people will not
tell you. This links to keeping public security alive.
o Although law can be subjective, some crimes are accepted by a very large
majority due to the ethical and moral side behind it, so for example, most will
agree that it is a major criminal offence to rape a baby. The baby is innocent
and has not developed into a human that can think for itself and has already
lost its virginity to an adult that should have known better, so there is a strict
liability element here which supports the idea of strict liability.
o A person may be more dangerous because of their intention so strict liability
stops people before the act is committed.
CONCLUSION: Should strict liability ever be justified?
o Strict liability does have defences, differentiate this from the MR.
o Does not violate presumption of evidence. Links more to individual autonomy,
the idea that you should be liable for something alongside your MR.
o What is being presumed is that D’s honest intentions can mean they are not
held liable.
2) Andrew Simester has argued that convicting someone for a strict liability
offence, when the label of the offence is perceived by the public as stigmatic,
amounts to moral defamation by the state. This is because the conviction
consists in attributing responsibility for that offence without having
established that the individual acted culpably. Do you agree with this
argument?
To know more, read Andrew Simester, ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’ in A. Simester
(ed.) Appraising Strict Liability (OUP 2005).
