Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Strict Liability - Coggle Diagram
Strict Liability
Requirement of AR
-
R v Prince
Took a girl under 16 out of the possession of her father without his permission, he thought she was over 18, conviction upheld
-
-
-
-
Presumption of Mens Rea
The wording of the statute can show if the crime is strict liability or not - ‘knowingly’ ‘maliciously’ ‘intentionally’
The courts must assume that MR is required, but are prepared to rebut the decision if necessary
Gammon - “the presumption that the MR is required for a criminal offence can be rebutted if the words of a statute suggest strict liability is intended.”
-
-
What and Why
Strict liability offences are those offences where the mens rea is not required to be proved in respect to one or more elements to the actus reus
It is used in order to raise standards, save time and money, protect the public, as a deterrent, regulatory offences and if it would be hard to prove the mens rea
-
Social Concern
If there are any potential dangers to health, safety or morals, then the presumption of MR is displaced
R v Blake - “offence created in the interest of public safety, given the interference with the operation of the emergency services that could result from unauthorised broadcasting” - unlicensed radio equipment