Karteikarten
Strict liability
Karten in diesem Stapel (26)
- 1Storkwain?D was charged under S.58 of the medicines act 1968 because he supplied a person drugs with a forged prescription – he had not acted dishonestly, he did not have mens rea but he was guilty
- 2LarsonneurD had been asked to leave UK as she was a foreigner, she went to Ireland and was sent back to the UK under her will by the police- she had no mens rea and the act was involuntary BUT she was guilty under the Aliens Order Act 1920. did not have mens rea and act was Involuntary. (absolute liability)
- 3WinzarD was taken to hospital on a stretcher, it was later found that he was drunk so police moved him to a roadway outside the hospital, then took him to the police station for being ‘drunk on a highway’- he was guilty. no mr and involuntary act but still guilty (absolute liability)
- 4princetook girl in father’s possession but believed she was over 18. He had intention to take her but knowledge of her age did not need mens rea - guilty
he knew she was in fathers possession but thought she was 18 convicted as he knew she was in fathers possession - 5HibbertD met a girl age 14 on the street.. he took her to another place where they had sex but was aquitted as it was not proven that he knew she was in custody of her father. mr was required for taking girl so not guilty
- 6callow v tillstonebutcher asked vet to examine carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption- vet said yes but it actually wasn’t – guilty although D had taken every precaution -not his fault
- 7Harrow LBC v shah and shahD owned newsagents- made sure everyone knew that they had to buy ID when selling lottery tickets. One sold it to a 13 year old boy- no due diligence defence. GUILTY of selling to an under 16. BUT they all took reasonable steps to prevent this
- 8Cundy V le Cocq 1884charged with selling liquor to a drunk person- did not seem drunk and was quiet but D was guilty
no defence of mistake - 9Sherras v De Rutzenconvicted of selling alcohol to a constable on duty but the officer removed his ‘on duty’ arm band before going into the shop- convicted but quashed as it was a genuine mistake and NOT STRICT LIABILITY
-no defence of mistake - 103 common law offences which are of strict liability1)public nuisance
2)criminal libel
3)outraging public decency - 11Gibson and sylveire 1991outraging public decency- Gibson had created an art exhibit made out of frozen human foetuses. sl offence- guilty
- 12lemon and whitehouse v gay newspoem published in gay news showing Christ as a homosexual. sl offence blasphemous libel-guilty. offence now abolished
- 13approx how many sl offences are statute law +what do they include3500- pollution, food, alcohol, gaming
- 14sweet v parselyd rented a farmhouse and let it out to some students. police found cannabis. d had no mr so not guilty.
the principle says that all cases start off with the presumption that mr is required - 15gammon 1984created to decide whether an offence is SL or not
1)words in statute
2)mr presumption strong where the offence is truly criminal
3)statue is concerned with an issue of social concern orpublic safety
4)apply if it encourages greater vigilance - 161) wording in actwhere words indicating mr is used then offence IsNOT one of SL
- 172) Quasi criminal offencesmr is strong if an offence is punishable by imprisonmet. but offences that are regulatory in nature aka 'quasi criminal' are more likely to be SL
- 18Alphacellcompany caused river pollution- held to be a regulatory offence. public importance
- 19B V DPP15 year old asked a 13 year old for oral sex- he thought she was over 14- he was charged with committing an act of indecency to a child under 14 years old
-The conviction was quashed because mens rea is needed because it carried a sentence of max 2 years imprisonment
-So the greater the offence, more likely mens rea is required? - 20What can cover ‘issues of social concern’?(factor 3)any activity which is a ‘potential danger to public health, safety or morals’
- 21blakeD was convicted of using a station for broadcast without licence. His defence was he did not know that he was transmitting. He was convicted on the basis that it was one of SL. his appeal was dismissed.
- 22What does it mean it mean by ‘promoting enforcement of the law’ under the gammon test?(factor 4)-if the imposition of strict liability will not make the law more effective then there is no reason to make the offence one of strict liability
- 23Lim Chin Aik v The queen 1963D was convicted of entering Singapore when he was prohibited
-the idea of conviction was to try and prevent illegal immigration
-However, there was no evidence that D knew about this
-The privy council decided it was not enough to be sure that the statute dealt with grave social evil in order to infer strict liability – not guilty as it was not going to enforce greater vigilance - 24Roscoe Pondadvantage of sl - “not meant to punish the vicious but to put pressure upon the thoughtless and inefficient”
- 25Environment agency v brook– leakage caused by hidden defect- guilty and liable BUT they were unaware of it! Not fair – no evidence that SL improves standards
- 26R V G 2008- G had consensual sex with a girl who he thought was 15 but was actually 12. She said she was 15. G prosecuted for rape of under 13. Pleaded guilty as it was SL but he had no mens rea! leads to social stigma
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Strict liability, erstellt von amrita.sagoo am 12/06/2015.
- Erstellt von
- amrita.sagoo · Jun 2015
- Aktualisiert
- 19 Feb 2016
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung
Mehr zu Elements of Criminal Liability