Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Paper 1-Criminal Law > Strict liability (No fault liability) > Flashcards

Strict liability (No fault liability) Flashcards

1
Q

What do we mean by fault?

A

Someone has done something wrong for which they are to blame

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does no fault liability mean?

A

Liability where the D is not at fault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is another phrase for no fault liability?

A

Strict liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What element is not needed in order to prove liability under strict liability crimes?

A

Mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Give some examples of strict liability crimes.

A

Smedley v Breed
London Borough of Harrow v Shah
Callow v Tillstone
Alphacell v Woodward
Most driving offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Summarise Smedley v Breed

A

Caterpillar in the tin of peas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Summarise London Borough of Harrow v Shah

A

Selling lottery ticket to an underage boy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Summarise Callow v Tillstone

A

Sale of unfit meat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Summarise Alphacell v Woodward

A

Allowing pollution into a river

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the reasons for strict liability?

A

Deal with regulatory as opposed to “truly criminal” offences
Protect the public by dealing with social concerns by encouraging people to follow regulations
To save time in court (driving offences)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

With no requirement for MR what can the D not use as a defence? What case?

A

The fact that they acted by mistake.
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Summarise the facts of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

A

D charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person
D had not realised the customer was drunk as they were ‘quiet in demeanor’
Still liable as SL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sometimes where statutes stayes that crimes are SL, what type of defence is available for SL?

A

Due diligence
However statutes are very inconsistent in stating whether a due diligence defence is available or not.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is due diligence?

A

The D will not be liable if they have done everything within their power to stop the offence taking place.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How did SL come into being?

A

Originally created during Industrial Revolution to prove guilt in business related offences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Why did SL come into being?

A

Protection of workers needed.
It was hard to prove that factory owners had intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

During the Industrial Revolution what were magistrates often also?

A

Factory owners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How was SL successful in factories?

A

When mens rea did not have to be proved then factory safety improved.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

There are almost no common law offences which are SL. What are the three exceptiond?

A

Public nuisance
Criminal libel
Outraging public decency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

How many statutory laws are SL?

A

Almost half of all of them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are these SL statutory laws like in nature?

A

Regulatory (hold you to the rules)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What are SL statutory laws sometimes called?

A

‘quasi crimes’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the problem with Parliament’s intention around SL?

A

Statues often left it unclear whether Parliament intended crimes to be SL or not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Who has to decide if crimes are SL or not when the statute is unclear?

A

The courts based on their interpretation of the Act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

When was Sweet v Parsley?

A

1970

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Summarise Sweet v Parsley

A

Mrs Sweet let out college to students who used it to smoke cannabis
Visited rarely-didn’t know of drug-taking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Was Mrs Sweet guilty for the crime of managing a property used for illegal drug taking?

A

No-she was acquitted (discharged) from this crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Why was Mrs Sweet not convicted for the crime?

A

It was decided that an element of mens rea was needed for there to be conviction for this crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is the principle deriving from Sweet v Parsley?

A

Where it is unclear in a statute, the courts starting assumption is that there needs to be mens rea for liability, especially where the action is “truly criminal”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Which case sets out the criteria for a crime to be one of SL?

A

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG (Attorney General) of Hong Kong

31
Q

When was Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG of Hong Kong?

A

1985

32
Q

What are the 5 criterias to determine whether a crime is one of SL?

A
  1. Assume mens rea is needed
  2. Especially for serious crimes
  3. Includes statutory crimes unless clear implication otherwise in statute
  4. SL used to address social concerns or public safety
  5. Can only be SL where it will genuinely encourage people to be more careful
33
Q

What did Lord Nicholls say about how a more serious offence should be treated?

A

‘The more serious the offence, the greater was the weight to be attacked to the presumption [of mens rea], because the more severe was the punishment and the graver the stigma (shame) that accompanied a conviction.’

34
Q

Which case represents Lord Nicholls idea on the more serious an offence, the more likely mens rea will be considered?

A

B v DPP (2000)

35
Q

Summarise the facts of B v DPP (2000)

A

15 yr old boy asks 13 yr old girl to do oral
Though he believes she is over 14
Charged with inciting child under age of 14 to commit an act of gross decency.

36
Q

Under what act was the boy from B v DPP (2000) charged with?

A

s.21 (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960

37
Q

What did the judge say in the B v DPP (2000) case?

A

Although the statute was unclear, for a serious offence such as this the court should assume mens rea is required.

38
Q

Which case shows that the law is not always consistent in following what Lord Nicholls said about more serious offences requiring mens rea?

A

Storkwain (2000)

39
Q

Summarise facts of Storkwain (2000)

A

D, a pharmacy owner, supplied drugs to a customer who had given a forged prescription

40
Q

Under what act was the pharmacy owner from Storkwain charged and for what?

A

s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968
For supplying drugs without a prescription

41
Q

Although the crime in Storkwain was serious what did court deem it and was the D guilty?

A

SL crime
The D was found guilty

42
Q

On rare occasions, involving a ‘state of affairs’, what were defendants found liable for?

A

Involuntary acts

43
Q

Give two examples of where a defendant was liable for an involuntary act involving ‘state of affairs’.

A

Larsonneur (1933)
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

44
Q

Summarise the facts of Larsonneur (1933)

A

A French woman went to Ireland when her UK visa expired.
Refused entry and brought back to UK by Irish police
At this point she was arrested for being an illegal immigrant (alien).
CoA upheld (kept) her conviction

45
Q

Summarise the facts of Larsonneur (1933)

A

A French woman went to Ireland when her UK visa expired.
Refused entry and brought back to UK by Irish police
At this point she was arrested for being an illegal immigrant (alien).

46
Q

What did the CoA do in Larsonneur (1933)?

A

CoA upheld (kept) her conviction

47
Q

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

A

The drunk D was escorted out of a hospital by police then immediately arrested for “being drunk on the highway”.

48
Q

What are the 4 arguments in favour of SL?

A
  1. SL protects the public interest
  2. SL only leads to small sentences anyway
  3. Number of SL crimes limited
  4. Promotes individual responsibility
49
Q

What are the 3 arguments against SL?

A
  1. Not in the interests of justice
  2. SL does not actually make people take more care
  3. SL not always for low sentence crimes
50
Q

How does SL protect the public interest?

A

Sometimes promoting wider public interest is more important than considering the blameworthiness of individual offenders.
Used to address social concerns
Make more people take care

51
Q

What cases can be used to show that SL protects the public interest?

A

Smedley v Breed (1974)
Shah v Harrow London Borough Council

52
Q

How does Smedley v Breed (1974) show that SL protects the public interest?

A

Encourages other manufacturers to be more careful, therefore addressing a public safety issue.

53
Q

How does Shah show that SL protects the public interest?

A

Encourages other shopkeepers to be more careful, therefore addressing a social concern.

54
Q

How does making motoring offences SL offences protect the public interest?

A

Encourages good driving

55
Q

How else is making motoring offences SL offences a good thing?

A

It is justified on practical grounds as MR would be difficult/time-consuming to prove in court

56
Q

Give examples of how SL only leads to small sentences anyway.

A

Polluting environment (Aphacell v Woodward)
Producing contaminated food (Smedley v Breed)
Creating a public nuisance (Sharrock)
Possession of cannabis (Marriot)
These offences are more likely to lead to fines rather than custodial sentences

57
Q

How are the number of SL crimes limited?

A

The guidelines in Gammon Ltd v AG of Hong Kong and the case of Sweet v Parsley:
Point out that the presumption in favour of a need for MR is particularly strong in “truly criminal” cases.

58
Q

How does SL give individual responsibility ?

A

Promotes the idea of personal responsibility in society
Biblical idea of ‘you reap what you sow’
Responsibility is yours even if you did not intentionally or knowingly take the actions you did

59
Q

What cases shows that SL promotes individual responsibility?

A

Howells (1997)

60
Q

Summarise the facts of Howell (1997)

A

D failed to obtain a firearms certificate for his gun.
He wrongly believed it was an antique and didn’t require one.
It did and he was liable for a strict liability crime.

61
Q

How does Howells (1997) promote individual responsibility?

A

Arguably, he should have been more careful.
His lack of knowledge was not an excuse.

62
Q

What did John Rawls argue about SL not being in the interests of justice?

A

In a perfectly just society, all individuals have certain inalienable (non-negotiable) rights.
That is rights which cannot be traded away in any circumstances, and these non-negotiable rights include freedom from ‘arbitrary (not based on principle, plan or system) arrest.’

63
Q

What does it mean by SL is not in the interests of justice?

A

It is not fair

64
Q

What case example shows that SL is not fair?

A

Winzar (1983)

65
Q

How does Winzar (1983) show that SL is not in the interests of justice?

A

D was removed by the police to the place where he was committing an offence.
Is this just?

66
Q

How does SL not actually make people care?

A

There is little evidence that SL encourages people to take more care.

67
Q

Which case shows that SL does not actually make people take more care?

A

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

68
Q

Summarise facts of Callow v Tillstone (1900).

A

Butcher had some meat inspected by a vet to check if it was fit for human consumption.
Vet was negligent and wrongly passed the meat.
Butcher was exposed to liability for selling unsound meat.

69
Q

How does Callow v Tillstone (1900) show that people won’t take more care just because of SL?

A

If anything, this decision will reduce the chances of butchers inspecting meat properly as they know they can be liable even if they do so, through no fault of your own.

70
Q

Which cases/offences show that SL is not always for low-sentence crimes?

A

Howells (1997)
Motoring offences

71
Q

How does Howells (1997) show that SL is not always for low-sentence crimes?

A

The D was convicted under s.1 of the Firearms Act 1968 which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.

72
Q

How do motoring offences show that SL is not always for low-sentence crimes?

A

Accumulation of points can lead to loss of licence

73
Q

Give some proposals for reform of SL.

A
  1. Make Acts in Parliament more clear
  2. Require each offence to have a defence of due diligence
  3. No offence carrying the penalty of imprisonment could be an offence of SL
  4. Remove regulatory offences from the criminal system
74
Q

What is due diligence?

A

the accused to “take all reasonable steps” or “all reasonable care” to avoid the harm that resulted

Paper 1-Criminal Law (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions