In Hibbert the defendant met a girl aged 14 on the street. In addition, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 made it unlawful for shops to display the price of an item contrary to the price showed at the point of sale. They phoned the police who took the defendant to the road outside. The company performed $20,000\$20,000$20,000 of services for customers, on credit. Both of these involve contraventions of the Licensing Act 1872. The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability. Mens rea was required for this part of the actus reus, and he had the necessary intention. Where D has taken all possible care not to do the forbidden act or omission.
Fault: Criminal Law Flashcards by Tom Robjohns | Brainscape In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation. In Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999], it is a strict liability offence to sell National Lottery tickets to a person under the age of 16 as it is an issue of social concern stated by the Divisional Court. In Woodrow this meant proving that he was in possession of the adulterated tobacco. MR M BATCHELOR (instructed by Messrs Shah and Burke, London, NW10) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. He understood that if he was in any doubt about the age of the purchaser he should ask for proof of identity and that if still in doubt he should then refer the matter to the respondents or refuse to sell. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain the relevant section, s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, was silent on mens rea. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd(1986) 2 All ER 635. Lord Russell said: Why then should the House, faced with a deliberate publication of that which a jury with every justification has held to be a blasphemous libel, consider that it should be for the prosecution to prove, presumably beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused recognised and intended it to be such The reason why the law considers that the publication of a blasphemous libel is an offence is that the law considers that such publications should not take place. 1 b). 963 , It follows that this is a case where the fourth and fifth of Lord Scarman's propositions are engaged. Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography, AP Edition, Elliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson. The facts were that local police when on duty wore an armband on their uniform. in Storkwain (1986) the offence carried a maximum sentence of two, years imprisonment. ", In 1984 in the Privy Council case of Gammon Limited v. Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 10, having reviewed the speeches in Sweet v. Parsley and. (2) Such regulations may in particular impose requirements or restrictions as to, (a) the minimum age of persons to whom or by whom tickets or chances may be sold. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. This case demonstrates how you can still be guilty of a strict liability offence even if you take precautions, in this case he was found guilty of selling food which was not fit for human consumption even though he had taken precautions by getting a vet to check the meat. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General ofHong Kong (1984) 2 All ER 503, the appellants had been charged with deviating from building work in a material way from the approved plan, contrary to the Hong Kong Building Ordinances. See Alphacell v Woodward and Callow v Tillstone above. Proof will NOT be required for one aspect of the mens rea but may be required for another.
Statutory Interpretation- Aids - Statutory Interpretation - Studocu The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. There are severe financial penalties for strict liability offences Harrow LBC v Shah (1999). Such offences are known as strict liability offences. Non-Fatal Offences: Cases. He had met the girl (14) on the street and taken her to another place where they had sex. In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation.
Strict Liability Flashcards by abigail Fairweather | Brainscape schedules. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) the defendants were charged under s13 (1) (c) of the National Lottery Act 1993. However, it is argued that due diligence should be a general defence, as it is in Australia and Canada. There is no need to prove that the defendants actus reus was voluntary. I help people navigate their law degrees.
Strict Liability Flashcards | Quizlet In each case the publican made a genuine mistake. HoL suggested that the common law presumption was that mens rea was required to be proved unless Parliament had indicated otherwise. For some offences, the statute creating the offence provides a defence of due diligence. This subsection does not, include any words indicating either that mens rea is required or that it is, not, nor does it contain any provision for the defence of due diligence. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. In R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991], a ships officer fell asleep while on duty and failed to ensure the ferry doors were closed before it set sail. Section 13 has two important features. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Outraging public decency was held to be an offence of strict liability in Gibson and Sylveire (1991) 1 All ER 439 since it does not have to be proved that the defendant intended to or was reckless that his conduct would have the effect of outraging public decency. 53 terms. He was charged with inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit actts of gross indecency with him, contrary to s1 (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. The magistrate also found that while the person was on the licensed premises he had been quiet in his demeanour and had done nothing to indicate insobriety; and that there were no apparent indications of intoxication. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. In Piper Alpha [July 1988], a massive explosion destroying a North Sea oil platform killed 67 out of the 229 people on board. The starting point in each case is always the samenamely, there is a presumption that included in the ingredients of the offence under consideration is the element of mens rea. Frances Webber (Gill & Co) for the appellant; Stuart Catchpole (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary. ", At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.". Note that blasphemous libel has now been abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The police had taken him to the highway. Copyright 2013. A case we can look at is Harrow London BC v Shah [2000]. Fault may be removed by a defence 4) The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, such as public safety. He was found guilty of rape. . Southwark LBC v Mills. The Divisional Court held that the offence did not require any mens rea. P and O escaped liability because the controlling mind could not be identified and hence, no director was held responsible for the event. If they do, then plainly, in order to prove a contravention of regulation 3, all that is required of the prosecution is proof of the sale of a national lottery ticket to a particular person and proof that at the time of the sale that person was under 16. D was told to leave the hospital but was later found slumped on a seat in a corridor. If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. She refused. In the c She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish Police deported her and took her back to the UK, against her wishes. No due diligence defence will be available.
Strict liability - e-lawresources.co.uk 77-3, June 2013, Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. View examples of our professional work here. The Law Lords quoted with approval what Lord Reid had said in Sweet v Parsley (see section 4.4.8 for full details of B v DPP). The respondents were proprietors of Woods Newsagents at Uxbridge Road, Harrow. Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require mens rea, but there are no modern cases. The defendant was told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped in a corridor. In Sherras the defendant was convicted by a magistrate of an offence under s 16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. A firm may be vicariously liable if there is a case of money laundering, tax evasion and manslaughter. Ben_Snaith. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. The defendant (26) was charged with indecently assaulting a 14 year old girl, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The policeman had removed his armband. The defendant (a foreigner) had been ordered to leave the UK. However, the court held that knowledge of her age was not required. Nearly all strict liability offences have been created by statute. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Citations: [1895] 1 QB 918. guns are regarded as matters of public safety. The modern type of strict liability offence was first created in the mid-nineteenth century. If they made clear in all sections which create a criminal offence whether mens rea was required, then there would be no problem. One of the models of corporate liability which is identification in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] whereby on appeal to the House of Lords (HL), conviction was quashed on the grounds that the branch manager was not part of the controlling mind in Tescos management structure as he was not in the senior management. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999. After reading this chapter you should be able to: Understand the basic concept of strict liability in criminal law, Understand the tests the courts use to decide whether an offence is one of strict liability, Apply the tests to factual situations to determine the existence of strict liability, Understand the role of policy in the creation of strict liability offences, Analyse critically the concept of strict liability. He would be there of his own volition because he had responded to a request. Where the particular offence has no words of intention, but other sections in the Act do, then it is likely that this offence is a strict liability offence. liability offences. Case law is inconsistent, for example, compare Cundy with Sherras v De Rutzen (1895). Although the courts start with the presumption that mens rea is required, they look at a variety of points to decide whether the presumption should stand or if it can be displaced and the offence made one of strict liability. She had no mens rea. Neither respondent was therefore aware of the transaction. Put another way, do these provisions create an offence of strict (or absolute) liability? Held: Appeal dismissed and conviction was upheld. Despite this she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused who was found in the United Kingdom. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. . 25th April 1998, during the course of his employment, Mr Hobday sold a national lottery ticket to a young boy who was thirteen-and-a-half. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. (a) the promoter of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence, except if the contravention occurred without the consent or connivance of the promoter and the promoter exercised all due diligence to prevent such a contravention, (b) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the promoter, or any person purporting to act in such a capacity, shall be guilty of an offence if he consented to or connived at the contravention or if the contravention was attributable to any neglect on his part, and. It was apparent that the director has a greater influence on the conduct of companys manager and the courts were able to identify the guilty act and the managing director as the controlling mind. He was served by the defendants daughter in the presence of the defendant. The Magistrates thought his liability was strict and found him guilty. The first known case on strict liability is thought to be Woodrow (1846) 15 M & W 404.