Principles of criminal liability
Strict Liability
Lesson Objectives
• I will be able to explain the meaning of
strict liability, giving reasons for its use
• I will be able to state and explain
examples of strict liability using decided
cases and Acts of Parliament
The principle
• Crimes of strict liability are crimes where the
definition of the crime includes an actus reus
and no mens rea. Merely performing the act is
sufficient to make a person guilty
• There are many crimes of strict liability, many of
which are purely regulatory and are not always
seen by some sections of society as ‘real’ crimes
• Many motoring offences are included in these
crimes, and in many cases the decision to
prosecute or not is seen, in part, as an indication
of whether there is a truly wrongful act
• Strict liability offences were originally created to
make it easier to prove guilt for business-related
offences
• In the 19th century, with the industrial revolution,
there were many abuses of factory workers that
were the subject of criminal law, but there were
very few prosecutions, as showing mens rea on
the part of the factory owner was very difficult
• In addition, there was a view that, as the
magistrates were often factory owners as well,
there was a temptation to find factory owners not
guilty, and lack of mens rea was often the
reason given
• When mens rea did not have to be proved,
conviction rates increased and so did factory
safety
Strict liability
• The vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory
offences. However, statutes do not always state explicitly
that a particular offence is one of strict liability
• Where a statute uses terms such as ‘knowingly’ or
‘recklessly’ then the offence being created is one that
requires mens rea
• Sometimes, particularly in more recent statutes, it may
be made clear that an offence of strict liability is being
created
• In many cases it will be a matter for the courts to
interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is
required or not
• Sweet v Parsley (1970) – this case is not one of strict
liability as the House of Lords decided that the statute
did not specifically exclude mens rea
• Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General
for Hong Kong (1985) – this case sets out the
general criteria for a crime to be a crime of strict
liability
• In this case the court considered the scope and
role of strict liability offences in the modern
criminal law
• The court started with the principle that in
criminal law there is a presumption of mens rea.
This means that it is presumed that all criminal
offences require some form of mens rea unless
the definition of the offence states the opposite
• Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which
a court should decide whether or not it is
appropriate to impose strict liability
• There is a presumption of law that mens
rea is required before a person can be
held guilty of a criminal offence
(presumption of mens rea)
• The presumption is particularly strong
where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in
character (truly criminal)
• The presumption applies to statutory
offences, and can be displaced only if this
is clearly or by necessary implication the
effect of the statute (statute must clearly
exclude mens rea)
• The only situation in which the presumption can
be displaced is where the statute is concerned
with an issue of social concern, and public safety
is such an issue (only for public safety or social
concern)
• Even where a statute is concerned with such an
issue, the presumption of mens rea stands,
unless it can be shown that the creation of strict
liability will be effective to promote the objects of
the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to
prevent the commission of the prohibited act
(encouraging greater vigilance)
Example of strict liability
• Many cases of strict liability result in a very
minor penalty, which makes one wonder why
there was a prosecution in the first place
• Alphacell v Woodward (1972) – here the
defendant company was guilty even though the
event could not be predicted. This encourages
greater vigilance in business
• Smedleys v Breed (1974) – the defendant
company was guilty, even though all reasonable
care had been taken
• London Borough of Harrow v Shah (2000)
– this is another example of the
characteristics of a strict liability offence: it
is not truly criminal, but is of social
concern
• Blake (1997) – the characteristic of strict
liability in this case is that of public safety
Conclusion
• Strict liability offences require no mens rea. Even though
these offences may seem unfair, the reasons behind
strict liability usually make prosecution a just outcome.
These reasons include:
• Easier to prove
• Takes less time in court
• Encourages compliance with the law
• Prevents defences being raised as an excuse
• Makes regulation straightforward
• Protects the public
• The exam will only ask about strict liability in theory
questions. It will not be related specifically to the
scenario or have to be applied to the scenario