Strict Liability

Question 1

What is meant by a strict liability offence?

Answer 1

“Where one element of the Actus Reus does not have a corresponding mens rea”

AP Simester (2021) “Six senses of strict liability”

Question 2

What is the main presumption of criminal law

Answer 2

Mens rea is required unless it is proved that it is not required (Sweet v Parsley)

Question 3

Introduction of Strict Liability Essay

Answer 3

Main objection is it involves convicting someone who has not done anything wrong

• BUT I hold the point of view that there are instrumental benefits to the practical application of strict liability in restricted circumstances as demonstrated by the implementation such liability by courts including
  the maintenance of public welfare and the regulation imposed on corporations.

Question 4

Flow of SL essay

Answer 4

Start with For and say how it is used in a balanced approach

Then counter and say any approach should not be used because of moral luck

Then explain in quasi criminal cases why it is needed

Allow the counters (for balance before smashing them down) and ultimately say why they are wrong

Then move to serious offences and use constructive liability to explain once again why SL is needed

Question 5

1st Paragraph SL

Answer 5

**W.L. Morison **

The goal of criminal law isn’t just moral blame, but also social protection.

SL shifts focus from moral culpability to behavioural control ->** DIFFICULT TO PROVE MR IN CORPORATE WORLD**

Gammon v AG HK -> Held Sweet v Parsley in lesser quasi criminal offences than truly serious -> because MR is more necessary there + MR could be displaced depending on the type of criminal act

Question 6

Criticisms of SL in quasi offences

Answer 6

**Lack of Effectiveness **

Strict liability might not be more effective than using negligence-based liability

Incentive Problem:

Incentive Problem: Simester -> SL reduces precautions rather than encourage them.

If people know they can avoid liability by taking certain precautions, they’ll do so. However, without that guarantee (as in strict liability), people may only take the minimum necessary precautions — which means less overall safety.
This makes blameless defendants (who didn’t intend harm) into “unrewarded risk-takers” because they’re still held accountable for accidents that weren’t their fault. Essentially, strict liability could encourage people to take fewer precautions since there’s no incentive to do more.

Question 7

Counter to the idea that Quasi offences are bad

Answer 7

Corporate regulation is used to show a situation where strict liability actually is necessary.

(Companies are often hard to prove intent against (no single person’s mind to point to).

**Alphacell v Woodward **is example of this issue -> factory owner was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river under the River Act 1951.

Salmon LJ SL justifiable (do not want corporations to take reasonable steps but to try and avoid it as best they can).

If we did have MR it would be hard to prove the mental state of a company as well. This would suggest that in the context of regulatory offences it is not unjust to impose strict liability as not only are regulatory offences non-stigmatic, applying strict liability to them prevents external costs improving public welfare.

In public interest to prohibit (e.g. speeding - s143(2), RTA 1988).

Question 8

SL in truly criminal cases

Answer 8

Ok so we are still left with the issue of of applying strict liability to offences that carry social stigma

Gammon test states that the presumption of requiring criminal intent (mens rea) is stronger for “truly criminal” offences, this presumption can still be overridden. R v G shows a case of a 15-year old who had sex with a 13-year old girl who believed was 15. HoL SL exists.

This can be justified on the basis of SL -> she was under 15 before then so it makes sense