Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Strict Liability (No Fault (Callow v Tillstone 1900 (Butcher took…
Strict Liability
No Fault
Callow v Tillstone 1900
Butcher took reasonable steps, but still guilty
No 'due dilligence' will be available
Harrow London Borough Council v Shah & Shah 1999
Ds were guilty
D can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence
Even where D totally blameless in respect of the consequence
AR must be proved & Ds conduct in doing the AR must be voluntary
SL
If decide offence doesn't require MR for part of AR then offence = SL
Prince 1875 / Hibbert 1869
There's presumption MR is required > courts will always start with this
Requirement of AR
Must be proved D did relevant AR
Has to be proved the AR was voluntary
No Defence of Mistake
Defence of mistake isn't available
Cundy v Le Cocq 1884
D charged & convicted of selling alcohol to a drunk person
Where MR isn't required in respect of at least 1 aspect of the AR
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986
Pharmacists had supplied drugs without genuine prescription > enough to make them guilty of offence
Move round to the right