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;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Strict Liability Definition |
Strict Liability offences is those offences where mens rea is not required for at least one aspect of actus reus.
|
|
|
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. (1986)
|
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. (1986)
D was charged under s58(2) of the medicines Act 1968 Which states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctors prescription, D had supplied drugs on prescription, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. Despite this, the HOL held that the divisional court was right to direct the magistrates to convict D. The pharmacists had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription and this was enough to make them guilty. |
|
|
Requirement of Actus Reus |
For nearly all strict liability crimes, it needs to be prived that the D did the revelavant actus reus. Also the Ds actions need to be voluntary ,except in cases of absolute liabilty/ |
|
|
Absolute Liabilty |
To be an absolute liability offence the following conditions must apply: >The offence does not require mens rea > The actus reus does not need to be proved voluntary. Where the D can be found guilty even if his doing of the actus reus was not found to be voluntary. No mens rea at all is required. Absolute liability offences involve status offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs. The d is liable because he has been found in a certain situation. These offences a very rare. |
|
|
Larsonnuer (1933) |
The D who was from a foreign country (and was therefore deemed an alien in the language at the time), had been ordered to leave the UK. 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. Despite this she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being an alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused... found in the UK. |
|
|
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent(1983) |
D was taken to hospital on a stretcher, but when he was examined by the doctors they found him to be drunk rather than ill. D was told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped on a seat in a corridor. The police were called and they took D to a roadway outside the hospital. They formed the opinion that he was drunk so they put him inside 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. Goff LJ, of the Divisional Court, justified the conviction, pointing out that the particular offence was designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by drunk people in a public place. It is not known how winzar ended up at the hospital but it is thought there may have been some fault in his conduct. He had become drunk (presumably voluntarily) and must have either been in a public place when the ambulance collected him, or called the ambulance himself when he was not ill but drunk. |
|
|
Courts will start with the assumption that mens rea is required but if they decide that mens rea is not required for at least one part of the actus reus then the offence is one of strict liability. Not requiring mens rea cases: |
Prince(1875) and Hibbert(1869). In both these cases the charge against the D was that he had taken an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father, against his will contrary to s55 of OAPA 1861 |
|
|
Prince(1875) |
Prince knew that the girl he took was in the possession of her father but 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. |
|
|
Hibbert (1869) |
The D met a girl aged 14 on the street and took her to another location where they had sexual intercourse. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in custody of her father. 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. |
|
|
No Fault |
Although the actus reus and voluntary nature of actus reus needs be proved a D can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence. Example case Callow v Tillstone (1900) |
