Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Fundamental requirements of criminal liability LO1 - Coggle Diagram
Fundamental requirements of criminal liability LO1
Factors for determining an offence of strict liability
presumption of mens rea
reference to Gammon guidelines
provision of statutory defence
nature of sanction
critical evaluation of strict liability
proposals for reform
Sweet v Parsley (1970)
Landlady charged with management of premises used for purposes of smoking cannabis. H of L quashed the conviction not an offence of strict liability.
Lord Reid - re-stated the general principle that where statute says says nothing about mens rea there is a presumption that mens rea will be required.
Distinction between crimes which were truly criminal where penalties were severe and mens rea should be required, and purely regulatory offences with minor penalties. Such offences were "quasi-criminal" and strict liability was a practical and acceptable way of dealing with them.
Gammon v A-G of Hong Kong (1985)
Laid down criteria to assist in determining whether an offence was one of strict liability. Retained presumption in favour of mens rea for every offence but outlined situations when presumption could be rebutted.
Can be displaced by clear wording in a statute or by necessary implication from the effect of the statute.
Presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal
Only situation which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety
the presumption stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.
R v Blake (1997)
Strict liability - public safety issues arose due to interference such unauthorised broadcasts caused to public and emergency services.
B v DPP (2000)
Approach outlined in Gammon followed. Prosecution had to prove an absence of genuine belief on the part of the accused which did not have to be on reasonable grounds, that V was 14 or over.
R v K (2001)
Followed B v DPP (2000) H of L held D's mistaken belief (whether reasonable or not) that the girl was over 16 was a valid defence.