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;
4 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Definition |
A strict liability offence does not require a mens rea to be proved against the accused. It is only necessary to prove the defendant committed the crime volentarily. This is similar to absolute liability but the main difference is absolute liability does not require the defendant to intend to commit the crime or to be aware of the circumstances making it a criminal offence. Lord Scarman set down the criteria used by the courts to decide wether a case is one of strict liability, but the can be both statutory or common law offences. |
|
|
First Example (lottery) |
Harrow London Borough Council v Shah Defendants were found guilty as no mens rea was needed the act was enough, even though they did there best to prevent this from happening. |
|
|
Second Example (Peas) |
Smeedlys v Breed Defendants were found guilty even though they did everything possible to stop this from happening. This is because it is a strict liability case designed to protect the public interest. |
|
|
Reson For Strict Liability Cases |
Another reason for the having of strict liability offences is they are easier to prove as they require no mens rea which can be difficult to prove especially if the defendant is a company rather than a individual. This can also save the courts time and money. |
