CRIMINAL LAW

Question 1

what occurs in R v Blake (1997)?

Answer 1

D was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license contrary to s(1) of the wireless telegraphy act 1949. defence was he believed he was making a demonstration tape and did not know he was transmitting.

Question 1

what is a case that shows how transmitting an unlicensed broadcast has been held to be a matter of social concern? (1)

Answer 1

R v Blake (1997)

Question 2

what is meant by the presumption of mens re? (1)

Answer 2

unless the words make it clear that mens rea is not required, the courts will always start with the presumption that mens rea is required.

Question 3

what case shows the presumption of mens rea? (1)

Answer 3

sweet v parsley (1969)

Question 4

how do courts decided whether strict liability applies? (6)

Answer 4

-presumption of mens rea
-looking at the rest of the act
-quasi-criminal offences
-penalty of imprisonment
-issue of social concern
-would strict liability promote enforcement of the law?

Question 5

what case demonstrates looking at the rest of the act? (1)

Answer 5

storkwain (1986)

Question 6

what case demonstrates the implication of quasi-crimes? (1)

Answer 6

Harrow LBC v Shah and shah (1999)

Question 7

what case shows penalty of imprisonment? (1)

Answer 7

B v DPP (2000)

Question 8

What case shows issues of social concern? (1)

Answer 8

Blake (1997)

Question 9

what cases shows strict liability on its enforcement on the law? (1)

Answer 9

Lim chin Aik v The queen (1963)

Question 10

what is meant by looking at the rest of the act? (1)

Answer 10

of other subsections state that mens re is required but the section being considered does not state this, it is likely that the offence will be held to be one of strict liability.

Question 11

what is meant by quasi crime offences? (1)

Answer 11

regulatory crimes (not truly criminal) are more likely to be held to be strict liability offences.

Question 12

what is meant by penalty of imprisonment?

Answer 12

where an offence is punishable by imprisonment it is less likely that it will be held to be one of strict liability.

Question 13

what is meant by issues of social concerns? (1)

Answer 13

where the offences involves potential danger to public health, safety or morals then it is more likely to beheld to be a strict liability offence.

Question 14

what is meant by strict liability enforcing the law?

Answer 14

if making the offence one of strict liability would not help law enforcement then there is no reason to make the offence one of strict liability.

Question 15

what are some of the justifications of strict liability? (6)

Answer 15

-social utility
-policy issues
-it is easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea
-it saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty
-parliament can provide a ‘due diligence’ defence where this is though to be appropriate
-lack of blameworthiness can be taken into account when sentencing

Question 16

how is social utility a justification of strict liability?(3)

Answer 16

Strict liability offences help to protect society by regulating activities ‘involving potential danger to public health, safety or morals’ making an offence of strict liability promotes greater care over these matters by encouraging higher standards such as hygiene in the food industry.
Failure to comply with such standards can lead to risk to the life and health of a large group of people.
Arguments suggest that there is no evidence that offences of strict liability actually do what they were implemented to do.

Question 17

How is policy issues a justification for strict liability? (2)

Answer 17

-statutory acts are related by parliament to prevent danger or other problems to the public. (Risks of danger to the public outweigh individual rights-even if the defendant has done everything in their power to reduce the risk).

Question 18

Who explained how strict liability affects statutes made by parliament? (2)

Answer 18

Roscoe pound-
“Such statutes are not meant to punish the vicious but to put pressure upon the thoughtless and inefficient to do their whole duty in the interests of public health or safety”

Question 19

What is meant by a ‘due diligence’ defence? (2)

Answer 19

Also called a ‘no negligence’ defence can often soften the law on strict liability, this is provided in many statues and can satisfy objectors to the imposition of strict liability.

Question 20

What is a case in which ‘due diligence’ is used as a defence causing haphazard? (1)

Answer 20

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)

Question 21

What arguments arise from strict liability? (5)

Answer 21

-it imposes liability on people who are not blameworthy
-those who are unaware risks may be guilty
-there is no evidence that it improves standards
-the imposition of strict liability s contrary to human rights
-some strict liability offences carry a social stigma

Question 22

Explain how an individual can be liable even though they are not blameworthy? (1)

Answer 22

Such as those who have taken it upon themselves to prevent an outcome are still guilty if it occurs and will be punished.

Question 23

What cases show liability even bough not blameworthy? (2)

Answer 23

-Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
-Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Question 24

Explain how an individual can be guilty even though they are not aware of the risk? (3)

Answer 24

In the environment agency v Brock plc (1998) HOL considered word ‘cause’, held that an defendant could only escape liability if they could prove that the occurrence arising from the operations of their business was ‘abnormal and extraordinary’ rather than a normal fact or life, they went onto say that even though the event was not foreseeable a defendant were to still be liable if the material was of ordinary occurrence.

Question 25

Explain how strict liability does not improve standards? (1)

Answer 25

If the precautions against a small risk are too expensive then company managers may decide not to pay and take the risk. The idea of ‘profit from risk’.

Question 26

Explain how strict liability goes against human rights?

Answer 26

Where an offence is punishable by imprisonment is that it is contrary to human rights. Raised in R v G (2008)

Question 27

Explain how offences of strict liability are a social stigma? (2)

Answer 27

Case of R v G (2008) strict liability can be imposed even if i creates serous social stigma. As a result of Gs conviction he was put on the list of sex offenders. This is not a problem for regulatory quasi-crimes as they carry almost no social stigma.

Question 28

Why should statues on strict liability be reformed? (3)

Answer 28

-no way of knowing whether parliament deliberately decided to make an offence one of strict liability. (Recommended that parliament should state expressively)
-the draft of he criminal code stated this under the presumption of mens rea in the code c20 ‘every offence requires a fault element of recklessness with respect to each of its elements other than fault elements,otherwise provided’.
-removing regulatory offences from the criminal system an administrative system) could not be done to mainstream crimes (sexual offences)