494520
SL Evaluation
- Policy issues
- Statutory offences
largely created to
protect the public
and the risk of
dangers outweigh
the individuals rights
- E.g. SL offences
incentivise the vehicle
owners to maintain their
vehicle in a roadworthy
condition to reduce risks
- Roscoe Pound: 'Not meant to punish
the vicious but to put pressure upon
the thoughtless and inefficient...'
- E.g. SL offences
incentivise the vehicle
owners to maintain their
vehicle in a roadworthy
condition to reduce risks
- Statutory offences
largely created to
protect the public
and the risk of
dangers outweigh
the individuals rights
- Social utility
- SL offences regulate activities
involving potential danger to
public health, safety or morals
- E.g.
- Hygiene in
food
processing
and sale
- Obeying building and
transport regulations
- Hygiene in
food
processing
and sale
- E.g.
- Promotes greater care by
encouraging higher standards
- Failure to comply with
standards could risk the life
and health of a large number
of people
- Is there evidence to support this?
- Possibly counter-productive in
that, if a person can be prosecuted
after taking all precautions they
may not bother to take any at all
and save the money
- Failure to comply with
standards could risk the life
and health of a large number
of people
- SL offences regulate activities
involving potential danger to
public health, safety or morals
- Other justifications
- Easier to enforce as no need to prove MR
- Rather than prosecute for minor regulatory
breaches the Health and Safety Executive
and local Trading Standards are more likely
serve improvement or prohibition notices first
- Ensures compliance of the law without court hearing
- Ensures compliance of the law without court hearing
- Rather than prosecute for minor regulatory
breaches the Health and Safety Executive
and local Trading Standards are more likely
serve improvement or prohibition notices first
- Saves court time
- Many Ds plead guilty as only the act needs to proved
- Many Ds plead guilty as only the act needs to proved
- Provision of a 'due dilligence' defence
where Parl. consider this appropriate
- Can soften the law on SL
- Parl. provides for this in many instances by
including it in the statute creating the offence
- But this appears haphazard
- H LBC v Shah & Shah
- Defence is allowed for promoters of the
lottery but not for those managing a
business in which lottery tickets are sold
- Defence is allowed for promoters of the
lottery but not for those managing a
business in which lottery tickets are sold
- H LBC v Shah & Shah
- Can soften the law on SL
- Lack of blamewothiness can be
taken into account when sentencing
- A lenient sentence is likely to
be enforced if J feels the level
of blamewothiness is low
- A lenient sentence is likely to
be enforced if J feels the level
of blamewothiness is low
- Easier to enforce as no need to prove MR
- Liable even
though not
blamewothy
- Even those who have
taken every possible
care will be found guilty
- Harrow LBC v
Shah & Shah
- Callow v Tillstone
- Harrow LBC v
Shah & Shah
- Even those who have
taken every possible
care will be found guilty
- Guilty even
though
unaware of
the risk
- Environment
Agency v
Empress Car Co
(Abertillery) Ltd
- Lords considered the word 'cause' in a SL
offence. Held that a D could only escape an
SL offence if he could show that the
occurence arising from the operations of his
business was 'abnormal and extraordinary'
rather than a normal fact of life
- Whether it was forseeable or not is not to be considered
- So D can be liable without foreseeing the risk
- Environment Agency v Brook plc
- Environment Agency v Brook plc
- So D can be liable without foreseeing the risk
- Whether it was forseeable or not is not to be considered
- Lords considered the word 'cause' in a SL
offence. Held that a D could only escape an
SL offence if he could show that the
occurence arising from the operations of his
business was 'abnormal and extraordinary'
rather than a normal fact of life
- Environment
Agency v
Empress Car Co
(Abertillery) Ltd
- Doesn't improve standards
- No evidence to suggest it does
- Profit from risk
- If likely to be prosecuted
anyway and the cost of
covering a small risk is high
then the business may
decide to take the profit
instead of covering the risk
- If likely to be prosecuted
anyway and the cost of
covering a small risk is high
then the business may
decide to take the profit
instead of covering the risk
- No evidence to suggest it does
- Contrary to HR
- R v G
- Lords ruled unanimously that A6(1) only
guarenteed fair procedure and wasn't concerned
with content and A6(2) required the presumption
of innocence but made no reference to what the
mental or other elements should be
- Lords ruled unanimously that A6(1) only
guarenteed fair procedure and wasn't concerned
with content and A6(2) required the presumption
of innocence but made no reference to what the
mental or other elements should be
- R v G
- Social stigma
- Imposition of criminal liability creates
social stigma for the defendant
- G was put on the sex offenders list
- G was put on the sex offenders list
- This isn't a problem with
regulatory offences
- Imposition of criminal liability creates
social stigma for the defendant
- Reform proposals
- Parliament should
expressly state whether
or not it is a SL offence
- Draft Criminal Code clause
20 suggested the
presumption of mens rea
- Draft Criminal Code clause
20 suggested the
presumption of mens rea
- Defence of due
diligence fully
available to all SL
offences
- J's developed this in
Austrailia & Canada
- J's developed this in
Austrailia & Canada
- No imprisonment for SL offences
- Removing regulatory
offences from criminal
system and making them
administrative
- However, injustices like R v G will still exist
- However, injustices like R v G will still exist
- Parliament should
expressly state whether
or not it is a SL offence
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.