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;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Storkwain 1986 |
D waa charged under s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 which abbaned the supply of certain drugs without a doctor's prescription D had supplied drugs on prescriptions but were found to be forged Which was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists D was guilty as he supplied drungs without a genuine prescription s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 was silent oj mens rea But other sections in the Act expressed mens rea is required This means that s.58(2) is a strict liability offence |
|
|
Larsonneur 1933 |
Absolute liability: Guilty even they didnt do the actus reus voluntarily which is normally required for SLO D was asked to leave UK Was brought back by the Irish police officers against her wish D was arrested after she landed in UK |
|
|
Winzar 1983 |
Absolute liability:Guilty even they didnt do the actus reus voluntarily which is normally required for SLO D was found slumped in a hospital The police took D to the roadway outside D was charged with being found drunk in a highway The court stated that the act was designed to deal with nuisancebeing committed by drunk persons in a pucblic place Not known how Winzar was taken to hospital but there was possible fault of his conduct He became drunk, persumably voluntarily And he must have summoned medical assistance when he was only drunk but not ill = nuisance to the medical centre |
|
|
Prince 1875 |
Partial strict liability D was charged of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of possession of her father, against his will Prince knew that the girl he took was in possesson of her father But believed that she was aged 18 D was convicted of intended to remove her from her fathers possession Since MR was required for the possession part n he had the necessary intention However knowledge of her age was not required So its a strict liabilty for that part of the offence |
|
|
Hibbert 1869 |
Partial strict liabilityD was charged of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of possession of her father, against his will D took the 14 year old girl and had sexual intercourse Was acquitted for this offence Since it was not proved that he knew the girl was in her fathers custody Although age aspect of the offence was one strict liability MR was requiredfor the removal aspect n the intention was not proved in this case |
|
|
Callow v Tillstone 1900 |
D can be convicted under SL if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence, even D was totally blameless of the result D was a butcher He asked a vet to examine whether the carcass was fit for human consumption The vet assured that it fits but it wasnt in fact D was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale |
|
|
Shah and Shah 1999 |
Due diligence defence D will not be liable if he can show that he did everything to not to commit an offence Ds owned anewsagent business where lottery tickets were sold Staffs were told and trained that not to sell tickets to who is under 16 One staff sold a ticket to a 13 yrs old boy without proving Ds were convicted of selling lottery tickets to a person who is under 16 This shows thay the defence didnt appear consistenly = useless |
|
|
Cundy v Le Cocq 1884 |
No defence of mistake: Otherwise D will be acquitted when he made an honest mistake D was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person The drunken person was quiet in his demeanour and had done nothing to indicate insorbriety and intoxication |
|
|
Sherras v De Rutzen 1895 |
No defence of mistake: Otherwise D will be acquitted when he made an honest mistake D was convicted of supplying alcohol to a constable on duty The comstable removed his armband which je supposed to Ds conviction was quashed Since the a constable was not observable The genuine mistake provided D with a defence So that this is not a SLO |
