Summary
Summary Strict Liability Scenario Plan
- Course
- Institution
A clearly structured strict liability scenario plan. Used for WJEC exam but applicable for other exam boards. Cases are included. A* standard.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
eleanortrend
Content preview
Strict LiabilityIntroduction
For all offences, judges will start with the presumption of mens rea.
However, this can be rebutted in cases of strict liability.
Strict liability offences are those which do not require mens rea for at least part of
the actus reus, as demonstrated by R v Prince and R v Hibbert.
Both of these involved charges to defendants who had married 16-year-old girls and
had therefore taken them out of their father’s possession.
The issue was whether mens rea was required in respect of 2 points.
First, whether the D had to know whether the D was under 16 and second, whether
the D had to know he was taking the girl from the ‘possession’ of her father.
The Gammon Tests
In deciding whether a case is one of strict liability, judges can use statutory
interpretation. They might use aids of interpretation such as the literal, golden,
mischief and purposive approach and also rules of language.
They can also use the ‘Gammon tests.’
These tests come from the case of Gammon, where D deviated from building work.
Due to this, it was necessary to decide whether it had to be proved that they knew
that their deviation was material or whether the offence was one of strict liability.
Whilst the Privy Council agreed that the case was to begin with the presumption of
mens rea, they went on to give 4 factors to take into consideration when deciding
whether the offence was one of strict liability.
Looking at the Wording of the Act
Firstly, it was stated that the presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if this is
clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute.
This is demonstrated by the case of PSGB v Storkwain, where D was convicted of an
offence under s58 Medicines Act 1968 for supplying drugs unlawfully, despite being
unaware that the prescription given to him was fraudulent.
Whilst other subsections of the Act stated that mens rea was required, the section
being considered did not.
Therefore, the offence was held to be one of strict liability.
In (D)’s scenario…
This is unlike the case of Cundy v Le Cocq, where the D was convicted of unlawfully
selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under the Licensing Act 1872, despite being
unaware of his condition.
Quasi-Criminal Offences
The presumption of mens rea is particularly strong in cases where the offence is
‘truly criminal’ in character.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller eleanortrend. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now