Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Strict liability crimes are those in which the defendant is held liable for
a criminal offense he committed, even if mens rea is absent.
Though the defendant did not intend any harm by his actions and was
completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act, the doctrine
of strict liability holds him liable for the criminal offenses committed.
Strict Liability
A. In general:
This means that in strict liability cases, the defendant is liable even though he did
not intend to cause the harm and did not bring it about through his recklessness or
negligence.
No trader shall intentionally sell any article at a price above the maximum
retail or wholesale price …
Two different stands re imposition of Strict
Liability
1. Under common law – mens rea is a basic constituent part of a crime,
court should not find a man guilty of an offence unless he has a
guilty mind.
A school teacher let her house out to students. The students were smoking
cannabis in the house. She was unaware of this activity. She was charged with
an offence of being concerned with the management of premises which were
being used for the purposes of smoking cannabis contrary to s.5(6) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.
The statute did not state any requirement of mens rea of the offence.
Sweet v Parsley
Held:
The House of Lords looked at the common law before the statute was
made. The common law required knowledge of the activities in
order to impose liability. Thus the presumption that statutes do not
change the common law was applied in addition to the presumption
that mens rea is required where the offence is a true crime as oppose to a
regulatory offence.
Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839.
Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the
defendants had contained caterpillars. The defendant company was
convicted of "selling food not of the substance demanded by the
purchaser" contrary to s2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 (now
replaced).
Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839
• They contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an
unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation
and that they therefore had a defence under the 1955 Act. They also
claimed that they had taken all reasonable care.
HL held that; It was not sufficient for the defendant to show that he had
taken all reasonable care to avoid the presence of the extraneous matter.
HL imposed Strict Liability even in the absence of ‘Mens rea’
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
The appellant Paper factory owner was convicted of causing polluted
matter to enter a river under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act
1951.
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.
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
Held:
As a matter of public policy the offence was one of strict liability and
therefore the accused was convicted.
The legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this
would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian
factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but
to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it.
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong
Kong [1985] AC 1
The appellant was a builder who had deviated from plans in the
construction of a building. It was an offence to deviate from the plans in
a substantial way. The appellant accepted he had deviated from the plans
but he believed that the deviation was only minor rather than
substantial.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and therefore his belief was
irrelevant and his conviction upheld.
Gammon
In determining whether an offence is one of strict liability there is a
presumption that mens rea is required