Strict Liability


Strict Liability
Strict liability contains crimes which do not require proof on mens rea in relation to at least some part of actus reus. Such crimes seem unfair as a defendant can be guilty even if they did not intend to commit an offence.

Strict liability offence represent a third of all cases brought before the courts. There are thought to be some 3500 offences of strict liability. Often these are regulatory and are generally minor in nature.

In the case of B v DPP a 15 year old boy was convicted for an offence of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, determining that it required and strong offence is serious. In the case of Sweet v Parsley, a school teacher D rented a cottage to a group of students, visiting only occasionally to collect rent. Police found that the students were smoking illegal drugs in the cottage. D was convicted even though she wasn’t aware of the students smoking.

Businesses
Most strict liability offences relate to the running of businesses, the owners of which may be prosecuted if they do not take adequate steps to ensure the business operates properly.

A company can in principle be guilty of an offence and strict liability is a highly effective way of achieving this. Even though a company has no brain to form the mens rea nor hands to commit the actus reus, and thinks and acts only through its directors and employees it can still be regarded as having committed an offence by the way of strict liability. Where the offence is one strict liability, prosecution is fairly easy since there is no need to prove the company as such knew or intended anything.

In the case of Alphacell v Woodward The appellant factory owner was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river. The offence related to an underground pipe which had become disconnected due to a blockage. The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. As a matter of public policy the offence was one of strict liability and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

In Smedleys v Breed, the defendant company had sold a can of peas. A caterpillar was found in it. Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required.

Sale of alcohol
It is an offence of strict liability for any person to sell intoxicating liquor on licensed premises to a person under 18. The prosecution does not have to prove that the seller knew the young person’s age, but the seller has a statutory defence if he can prove that he had no reason to suspect the young person was under 18 or that he exercised ‘all due diligence’ to prevent this.

It is also an offence for a person under 18 to buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor in a bar, or any person to buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for in a bar by a person under 18, and for a person under 18 to consume alcohol in a bar. But a person aged 16 or 17 may drink beer or cider with s meal in a restaurant.

Strict liability and individuals
However, strict liability offences can be used in criminal law concerning individuals where it would be difficult to establish mens rea because of the virtual impossibility of proving the necessary knowledge.

Road Traffic Act 1998
It is an offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a public road while his breath alcohol level exceeds the prescribed knowledge. D is equally guilty whether or not he knows he is over the limit.

There are comparatively few strict liability offences that affect ordinary people in their private lives, but such offences do exist. For example in R v Cichon the defendant had a fighting dog un-muzzled in public. The dog was sick and/or choking therefore he removed the muzzle to allow it to breathe. The dangerous dog act 1991 states that there are no exceptions in this case and the dog should have been muzzled.

Strict liability is not the same as absolute liability. Some defences do exist but they are very rare. An example of a rare case is in NRA v Yorkshire Water.

No comments:

Post a Comment