Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Justifications |
Protection of the public Deterrence Voluntary assumption of risk 'Not truly criminal' Necessary for enforcement Ease of proof Prosecutorial discretion/judicial discretion |
|
|
Criticisms |
Lack of moral blameworthiness Incompatible with fundamental mens rea Deterrence not relevant if they took all reasonable steps Voluntary assumption of risk a fiction 'Not truly criminal' then why charge? Substantial penalties Crassly utilitarian (Henry M Hart, The Aims of Criminal Law) |
|
|
Identifying Strict Liability |
Sweet v Parsley. Court will find mens rea even if it isn't mentioned. |
|
|
CC v Ireland |
Wilson J: "to inflict a grave injury on that person’s dignityand sense of worth" on the utilitarian nature. Therefore unconstitutional by article 40. |
|
|
After CC. |
High court in particular unwilling to use CC. Reilly v Patwell, held that a litter pollution act was strict liability. Minister for Justice v Dolny, SC case and held strict liability for harm in interpretation of assault. O'Connor v O'Neill Failing to give breath sample despite having a reason (asthma) was SL. BUT DPP v Cagney gave some hint as to there should be a defence to the breath sample failure. |
