Strict Liability Actual Exam Questions And Correct Detailed Answers.
5 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
HMEMS
Instelling
HMEMS
What are strict liability offences? - correct answer Those offences where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus are known as strict liability offences. An example demonstrating strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of ...
What are strict liability offences? - correct answer Those offences where mens rea is
not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus are known as strict liability offences. An
example demonstrating strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd (1986).
What happened in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd (1986)? - correct answer
The defendant was charged under S58(2) of the Medicines Act which states that no one shall supply
certain drugs without a doctor's prescription. The defendant had supplied drugs on prescriptions, but
the prescriptions were later found to be forged. There was no finding that the defendant had acted
dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists.
Despite this, the House of Lords held that the Divisional Court was right to direct the magistrates to
convict the defendant. The pharmacists had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription and this
was enough to make them guilty of the offence.
What must be proved for strict liability offences? - correct answer For nearly all
strict liability offences, it must be proved that the defendant did the relevant actus reus. For Storkwain
(1986), this meant proving that the chemist had supplied drugs without a genuine prescription. It also
has to be proved that the doing of the actus reus was voluntary. If the chemist had been forced to at
gun-point to provide the drug, then the act would not have been voluntary.
However, there are a few rare cases where the defendant has been found guilty even though they did
not do the actus reus voluntarily. These are known as crimes of absolute liability.
What are absolute liability offences? - correct answer Absolute liability means that
no mens rea at all is required for the offence. They involve 'status offences' where the actus reus is a
'state of affairs'. The defendant is liable because they have 'been found' in a certain situation. Such
offences are very rare. To be an absolute liability offence, the following conditions must apply:
1) the offence does not require any mens rea; and
2) there is no need to prove that the defendant's actus reus was voluntary. The cases of Larsonneur
(1933) and Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983) illustrate this.
What happened in Larsonneur (1933)? - correct answer The defendant, who was
from a foreign country (and was therefore termed an 'alien', in the language of the time), had been
ordered to leave the United Kingdom. She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police deported her and
took her in police custody back to the UK, where she was put in a cell in Holyhead police station. She did
, not want to return to the UK. She had no mens rea. Her act in returning was not voluntary. She was
taken back to the UK. Despite this, she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being, "an alien
to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused ... found in the United Kingdom".
What happened in Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983)? - correct answer The
defendant was taken to hospital on a stretcher, but when he was examined by doctors they found that
he was not ill but drunk. The defendant was later told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped
on a seat in a corridor. The police were called and they took the defendant to the roadway outside the
hospital. They formed the opinion that 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 S12 of the Licensing Act
1872. The Divisional Court upheld his conviction.
Why was the defendant in Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983) convicted? - correct answer
As in Larsonneur (1933), the defendant had not acted voluntarily. He had been taken to the highway by
the police. In the Divisional Court Goff LJ justified the conviction, pointing out that the particular offence
was designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by persons who are drunk in a public place.
It is not known how Winzar came to be taken to the hospital on a stretcher but it is possible that there
may have been an element of fault in his conduct. He had become drunk (presumably voluntarily) and
must have either been in a public place when the ambulance collected him and took him to hospital, or
he must have summoned medical assistance when he was not ill but only drunk.
What makes a strict liability offence? - correct answer For all offences there is a
presumption that mens rea is required. The courts will always start with this presumption, but if they
decide that the offence does not require mens rea for at least one part of the actus reus then the
offence is one of strict liability. This idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated by
two cases: Prince (1875) and Hibbert (1869). In both these cases the charge against the defendant was
that he had taken an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father, against his
will, contradictory to S55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
What happened in the case of Prince (1875)? - correct answer Prince knew that the
girl he took was in the possession of her father by believed, on reasonable grounds, that she was aged
18. He was convicted as he had the intention to remove the girl from the possession of her father. Mens
rea was required for this part of the actus reus and he had the necessary intention. However, the court
held that knowledge of her age was not required. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability.
What happened in the case of Hibbert (1869)? - correct answer The defendant met
a girl aged 14 on the street. He took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse. He was
acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. Even
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper RealGrades. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €13,63. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
