Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Strict Liability (SL) (Reasons for strict liability (SL) - advantages :…
Strict Liability (SL)
-
Absolute liability
Normally no matter what type of criminal offence, D must be proven to be acting ‘voluntarily’ in order to become liable but the court held that some cases such as those of affairs (affecting a society) where D has not ‘voluntarily’ done in committing a crime can become liable of an offence. Such offences are called ‘crimes of absolute liability’ or ‘state-of-affairs-crimes’
-
AL are criticised as they are not seen as fair as SL are not enough to justify the extreme unfairness inherent in absolute liability.
Strict liability is where after committing actus reus (AR), mens rea (MR) would not be required in order to become criminally liable
An example of strict liability is things that are regulatory (parking regulations, dog’s waste, speed driving which is then caught on camera - which you have AR therefore guilty of criminal liability (speeding)).
Also seen as the s.5 Road and Traffic Act 1988 (where offence for any person to drive motor vehicle on a public road while their breath alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit. D is guilty whether or not they are over the limit.
SL are criticised as they say that people are blamed for acts that they are not blameworthy for. E.g. liability without fault or blameworthiness, and therefore contradicts a fundamental principle that criminal law is based on culpability.
And following points can be made:
-
Quasi-criminal means a lawsuit or equity proceeding that has some, but not all, of the qualities of a criminal prosecution. It may appear in either a Common law or a Civil law jurisdiction. It refers to "a court's right to punish for actions or omissions as if they were criminal".
E.g. Case of B v DPP (2000)
This is where D asked a girl who is 13 to perform oral sex on him. When he was charged he claimed that he thought she was at least 14. Magistrate convicted him,ruling that this was of a SL offence thus if she was actually over 14 he will still be liable. However the appeal of HOL, conviction was quashed (reject as invalid), it was held that offence did require MR to be proved as the age of the child, namely, either intent to incite a child under 14 or recklessness as to whether the child was under 14
History of SL
During industrial Revolution there was large numbers of factory growth and due to this there was lots of issues regarding workers protection (health and safety). And it was difficult to use criminal law as it was difficult to prove that the factory owner has intention to harm the workers therefore cannot show criminal liability. Also majority of the magistrates were business owners themselves so if they say these factory owners were criminally liable then they are admitting themselves to be liable as well. Therefore they used SL which does not need to prove intention (MR) thus factory workers condition became better.