Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
STRICT LIABILITY - Coggle Diagram
STRICT LIABILITY
DISADVANTAGES
Possibility of injustice- It can be imposed without fault on the part of the D (Larsonneur- Deported to England from Ireland, became an 'illegal alien')
Roles of judges- Judges are interpreting what they think Parliament intended, risk of inconsistency
-
Further ramifications of strict liability offences- D's who aren't personally at fault (Callow v Tillstone)
Is strict liability actually a deterrent?- If people don't know they are committing a strict liability offence, how is it a deterrent?
Strict liability offences are those where it isn't necessary to prove mens rea- in cases of regulatory nature or of social concern
-
Not clear from wording if an offence is of strict liability- Gammon v Hong Kong- Builder went against architects plans as they were wrong.
-
- IF PARLIAMENT INTENDED ON CREATING A STATUTE OF STRICT LIABILITY
Mens rea required- Intentionally, recklessly, knowingly
No mens rea required- possession, cause
Alphacell v Woodward- Company had pipes near a river and they were clogged with debris, this led to the river being polluted
Parliament had intent to create a crime of strict liability due to them only needing to 'cause pollution'
ADVANTAGES
Encourages compliance with the law- with the necessity to prove mens rea, more D's are convicted acts of a deterrent (Alphacell v Woodward)
Time and cost of proving mens rea- It can be difficult to prove, courts would be clogged with cases and there would be an increase in court costs
Protects society by promoting a higher standard of care- Strict liability offences are easy to prove, people might take more care when acting out (Gammon v Hong Kong)
The sentencing is usually proportionate to the offence- Strict liability offences tend to carry small penalties. D's may be unaware that they are committing an offence
- IS THE OFFENCE REGULATORY IN NATURE OR A TRUE CRIME?
Sweet v Parsley- Woman was letting out a room and the tenants had been smoking cannabis and so she was found guilty of the management of the premises used for the illegal use of cannabis
Sweet appeal and Lord Reid's decision that only quasi crimes should be considered strict liability, quashing the charges against Sweet
If it was felt that strict liability was inappropriate and the offence should be classed as a 'true crime' requiring mens rea- Sweet didn't have mens rea
- IF THE OFFENCE WAS AN ISSUE OF SOCIAL CONCERN
-
It's of concern to the general society at any given time. It can shift over time but tends to relate to offences of selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors
-
- THE GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENT
The more serious the offence and punishment that can be imposed, the less likely it is to be one of strict liability
With strict liability D's can be convicted without fault, small penalties don't always act as a deterrant
Callow v Tilllstone- Damage to a small business' reputation can be far greater than the impact of a small fine. A butcher had been found guilty of putting unfit meat for sale, he went to a vet and they said it was ok, the law disagreed so he was guilty