Strict Liability

Question 1

What is unique about strict liability offences

Answer 1

Exception to the presumption of mens rea (do not need to prove intent)
Only need to prove actus reus

This means the defence of a mistake is not available

Question 2

What is meant by ‘absolute liability’ with a case example

Answer 2

actus reus need not even be voluntary - R vs Winzar

Winzar (1983) Drunk man in hospital, removed from Hospital and convicted for being drunk on public highway

Question 3

Why do judges sometimes need to decide if a case is ‘strict liability’ or not?

Answer 3

The majority of strict liability offences are statutory offences but Parliament does not always make it clear whether or not mens rea is required, leaving judges to decide whether an offence should be one of strict liability or not

Question 4

How do Judges decide if a case is to be strict liability?

Answer 4

Judges ALWAYS start with the presumption that mens rea is required and no offence is strict liability.

They hen consider the four gammon factors to confirm or rebut this presumption.
Laid down in the case of Gammon Ltd v Attorney General (1985).

Question 5

What are the four gammon factors?

Answer 5

Established these in Gammon Ltd v Attorney General (1985).

1. Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime?
   True crimes require mens rea e.g., Sweet v Parsley (1970).
2. Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern?

Issues of social concern (which can shift over time) are more likely to be classed as strict liability
e.g., Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999). Lottery ticket to 13 year old boy case

3. Did parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability by using certain words in a statute?

‘Mens rea words’ include: intentionally, recklessly and knowingly. Though there is no official list of words that point towards a crime being one of strict liability, there are some that have generally been interpreted by judges as pointing towards no mens rea being required. These include: possession and cause e.g., Alphacell v Woodward (1972).

4. The gravity of the punishment
   The more serious the criminal offence and punishment that can be imposed, the LESS likely it is to be one of strict
   liability e.g., Callow v Tillstone (1900).

Question 6

What else can Judges use to decide if a case is strict liability (that isn’t gammon factors)

Answer 6

Judges can also use statutory interpretation to interpret statutes to determine if Parliament intended the offence
to be one of strict liability
e.g., literal, golden, mischief and purposive rules, rules of language, presumptions and intrinsic/extrinsic aids.

Question 7

Name some ADVANTAGES of strict liability

Answer 7

1) Removes Time and cost of proving mens rea.

2) Protection of society by promoting a higher standard of care e.g., Sale of unfit meat - Callow v Tillstone;

3) The ease of imposing strict liability acts as a deterrent.

4) Proportionality of the punishment appropriate for strict liability.

Question 8

Name some DISADVANTAGES of strict liability

Answer 8

1) Possibility of injustice / unfair treatment - Larsonneur.

2) Role of judges in interpreting statutes can lead to inconsistency in judicial decisions.

3) Is strict liability actually a deterrent due to the small penalties involved?