Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Case studies for SL (Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG for Hong Kong 1985 - Done…
Case studies for SL
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG for Hong Kong 1985 - Done by Privy Council and not binding to our country but it clearly states the role of SL (5)
-
-
-
-
-
-
D charged with ‘being concerned in the management of premises used for drug-taking’ contrary to s.5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965
Sweet v Parsley 1969
Mrs Sweet is a teacher,she allowed her students on her farmland (premises) unknowing that the students were smoking cannabis and going to be charged but the magistrate found that D did not know about the drug taking thus was not found one of strict liability thus not guilty
D company charged with supplying a medicine without valid prescription, contrary to the Medicines Act 1968 (s.58 (2))
-
D, Restaurant manager was charged with selling food unfit for human consumption,contrary to the Food and Drugs Act 1955
Meah v Roberts (1977)
Customer in restaurant ordered lemonade for his children but accidently served caustic soda because of a mix-up over the bottles. Court held that offence was of strict liability offence and therefore D was liable, even though he had made an honest mistake and was not himself responsible for the mix-up.
D prosecuted for selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16, contrary to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993
-
-
-
High Court upheld conviction for ‘being found drunk in a highway’ contrary to the Licensing Act 1872
-
-
concerned with the Licensing Act 1872. It is important in relation to strict liability. The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under the Licensing Act.
Cundy v Le Cocq
D charged with selling intoxication to a drunk man. Employees did not know he was drunk. Magistrate upheld offence-need complete proof = where the sale takes place + person served was drunk and convicted D. D appealed against this but Divisional Court upheld this
-
Commit act of gross indecency with him, contrary to s.1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960
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