Fault: Criminal Law Flashcards by Tom Robjohns | Brainscape Note that the Law Commission consulted in 2010 on possible reform of the offences of public nuisance and outraging public decency. *You can also browse our support articles here >. In this case even the use of an expert (a vet) was insufficient top avoid liability. He would be there of his own volition because he had responded to a request. The draft Criminal Code of 1989 included provision for a general defence of due diligence, but the Code has never been enacted. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd (1986). 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. guns are regarded as matters of public safety. As a matter of fact, the constable was on duty; but does that fact make the innocent act of the appellant an offence? In the case the defendant served a a lottery ticket to a person that was under age. However, the fact that other sections specifically require mens rea does not mean that the courts will automatically make the offence without express words of mens rea one of strict liability. She refused. . Robert McCracken (Richard Buxton, Cambridge) for the applicant; Neil King (St Edmundsbury Borough Council) for the authority. The Magistrates thought his liability was strict and found him guilty. Subjects | Law Notes | Criminal Law. Act 1993. Cundy v Le Cocq - e-lawresources.co.uk The defendant was charged with serving an on-duty police officer with liquor. The July 31 and August 31, 2018, financial statements contained the following information: Required: . In general, the Courts will give a ruling after considering all the actions of the employees in a corporation. The defendant did not know that cannabis was being smoked there. 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. This was widely understood to mean that the officer was not on duty. In the case of Fisher v Bell [1961], a shopkeeper was prosecuted for displaying illegal flick knives for sale as contrary to Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. Under Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is a criminal offence to give a misleading price indication to consumers. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability. When the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations interferes with the TDA 1968 and Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it will revoke most of them. The defendant was a licensee of a public house. 11 terms. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. Statutory Interpretation- Aids - Statutory Interpretation - Studocu In the Divisional Court Goff LJ justified the conviction: [L]ooking at the purpose of this particular offence, it is designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by persons who are drunk in a public place. There are various aspects to the exercise. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. 1) The presumption of mens rea applies to statutory offences. D rented a farmhouse and let it out to students. Strict liability is very rare in common law offences. 61 terms. In the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. Determining whether Parliament has created an offence of strict liability involves rather more than applying a particular test, or working through a list of clearly and closely defined criteria. A SINGLE incident of torture of a person who claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution might amount to persecution if a group of which that person was a member had suffered other incidents, but isolated incidents of torture were not, without more, enough to constitute persecution. Determining whether Parliament has created an offence of strict liability involves rather more than applying a particular test, or working through a list of clearly and closely defined criteria. It was a strict liability offence, and even though the butcher had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence, he was still guilty. This idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated by two cases, Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 and Hibbert (1869) LR 1 CCR 184. This is a very important tool in determining whether he or she is liable for a persons death. 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. It is also firmly established that the fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea, for example because they contain the word 'knowingly', it is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates an absolute defence. For Storkwain this meant proving that they had supplied specified medicinal products not in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. Hence, conviction was quashed. Harrow LBC V Shah 1999. House of Lords - London Borough of Harrow (Appellants) v. Qazi (FC 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. He was charged with inciting a child under, the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under s1 (1) Indecency with, The offence of inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross. At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. The proof of only actus reus may apply to less serious crimes whereas mens rea is not required in many commercial agreements. Those facts are simple. On their appeal to the House of Lords, the Law Lords held that it was not necessary to prove that the defendants intended to blaspheme. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required, the offence will be one of strict liability. If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for! Act 1993 and the relevant Regulations. Despite this, the House of Lords still held that the offence, The type of crime and whether it is truly criminal are linked to another condition, laid down by the case of Gammon (1984) that is the question of whether the, crime involves an issue of social concern. Advanced A.I. There were no words in the section requiring the defendant to have knowledge that a constable was off duty. Throughout the Act it then states whether the the strict liability rule applies to the various offences of contempt of court. 1. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. They had told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years. It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences. -s.13 - only section without MR - selling to child. The prosecution has to prove that an individual was responsible and he or she played the role of the controlling mind. Such offences are very rare. The question set out in paragraph 8 of the Case is this: "whether an offence contrary to Regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994 and Section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant or his agent was aware of the buyer's age, or was reckless as to his age.". He, believed she was over the age of 14. At page 149 Lord Reid said this: "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary. Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. The editor and publishers were convicted of blasphemy. The courts will always start with this presumption, but if they decide that the offence does not require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus, then the offence is one of strict liability. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, mens rea was required for the removal aspect, and in this case, the necessary intention was not proved. Privy Council started with the assumption that Mens Rea is required before a person can be guilty of a criminal offence, but went on to give four other factors to be considered: In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) the defendants were charged under s13 (1) (c) of the National Lottery Act 1993. Facts. This case involved s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, which provides that no person shall supply specified medicinal products except in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. A mother was found guilty of failing to secure school attendance for her child. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994. Cases. Cases. The defendants owed a newsagent's . The corporation may only be personally or directly liable for their own actions by distinguishing the individual with controlling mind. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah the defendants were charged under s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery etc. S.11 (2) stated that if any person offering to supply goods of any description gives, by whatever means, any false indication to the effect that the price at which the goods are offered is equal to or less than a recommended price or the price at which the goods or goods of the same description were previously offered by him or is less than such a price by a specified amount, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence. B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 House of Lords. Proof will NOT be required for one aspect of the mens rea but may be required for another. 77-3, June 2013, Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. The similar rule was applied to a different statute when Tesco was caught in a subsequent case. broadcasting. 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. HARROW LBC v SHAH AND SHAH - all due diligence. There was no evidence the defendant had acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. Both these offences carry the same maximum sentence (two years imprisonment, a fine or both) for conviction after trial on indictment. In summary what did Roscoe Pound say when explaining the need for statutory offences of strict liability? . Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302. In Tesco v Brent [1974], Tesco was convicted for strict liability offence as to selling videos to under-age children. Looking for a flexible role? . Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. The key part of the judgment was when Lord Reid said: there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. At the time of the making of the sale Mr Hobday reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that the boy was at least sixteen years old. Nearly all strict liability offences have been created by statute. 963 , It follows that this is a case where the fourth and fifth of Lord Scarman's propositions are engaged. Day J justified his decision in Sherras by pointing to the fact that although s 16(2) did not include the word knowingly, s 16(1) did, for the offence of knowingly harbours or knowingly suffers to remain on his premises any constable during any part of the time appointed for such constable being on duty. The facts were that local police when on duty wore an armband on their uniform. HoL followed B v DPP, and stated that the presumption is that mens rea was required. In each case the publican made a genuine mistake. The other case is Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983; Co/1111/82 (Lexis), QBD. Crime. A shop keeper was held liable even though it . These are known as crimes of absolute liability. This is so even though the defendant was totally blameless in respect of the consequence, as was seen in Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411. AQA Law AS Unit 2 Criminal Law Cases. which they had installed failed, causing polluted effluent to overflow into a river. This was upheld in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. V Nattrass [1972]. For s 16(1) the prosecution had to prove that the defendant knew the constable was on duty, while for s 16(2) the prosecution did not have to prove knowledge, but it was open to the defendant to prove that he did not know. Neither respondent was therefore aware of the transaction. They held that the offence was not one of strict liability, and accordingly a genuine mistake provided the defendant with a defence. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. What are you implying? The role of implied terms in contract Re Baron Holding Investments Ltd; Ch D (Pumfrey J) 16 Apr 1999. Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require mens rea, but there are no modern cases. The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern; public safety is such an issue. Sherras v De Rutzen - Case Summary - IPSA LOQUITUR As already stated, the actus reus must be proved and the defendants conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary. Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132 . Strict Liability Flashcards | Quizlet HL stated that if reasonable people would regard the matter as something which the defendant had done, despite whether he or she knew of his or her actions, then mens rea is not required. 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. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Fatal Offences: Cases. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. If it was, then the butcher in, Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in, Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile. Regulatory offences also referred to as quasi-crimes are thought to be strict. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. ", "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable. IN DETERMINING whether a defendant "did the act or made the omission charged" for the purposes of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, and assuming insanity, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients constituting the actus reus of the crime alleged, but not the mens rea. As such, prosecution will no longer have to bias against a senior director or manager and prove that one senior employee is at fault. He was convicted of a strict liability offence. The sociological and political context was one of increased strain on police resources and widespread problems with the police Associative Discrimination and Equality Act. Where other sections allow for a defence of no negligence but another section does not, then this is another possible indicator from within the statute that the offence is meant to be one of strict liability. In the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. This must be a voluntary act on his part. 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'. Conviction was quashed because of the difficulty in securing the controlling mind which was also the same problem in P&O European Ferries case. The wording of the Act - where the word has no indication of no MR, there is the presumption it is not SL. Their defence was that this was the fault of the store manager for not checking the shelves properly and it was due to this that the items were advertised at a lower price. STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY. . Facts: The company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river, contrary to s2 (1) (a) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, when pumps. 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. 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 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability. She was charged with being 'an alien to whom leave to land in the UK has been refused and was found in the UK'. However, if a man in a restaurant made a thorough nuisance of himself, was asked to leave, objected and was ejected, in those circumstances he would not be in a public place of his own volition because he would have been put there It would be nonsense if one were to say that the man who responded to the plea to leave could be said to be found drunk in a public place or in a highway, whereas the man who had been compelled to leave could not. It was held that she was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea. They formed the opinion he was drunk so they put him in the police car, drove him to the police station and charged him with being found drunk in a highway contrary to s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. It states: ROBBERY, BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES IN THE THEFT ACTS, Arbitration of International Business Disputes, Brownlies Principles of Public International Law, Health and Human Rights in a Changing World, he Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free_ Laws for the Internet Age, International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication, International Maritime Conventions (Volume 3), International Sales Law A Guide to the CISG, Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect, Research on Selected China's Legal Issues of E-Business, Serving the Rule of International Maritime Law, Stephen Cretney-Family Law in the Twentieth Century_ A History-Oxford University Press (2003), The Impact of Corruption on International Commercial Contracts, Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, Trade Policy between Law Diplomacy and Scholarship. 2. The concept of strict liability appears to contradict the basis of criminal law.