Question 2: “The use of strict liability in criminal offences can be justified.” Critically analyse this claim.
In order to prove criminal liability there must be three major components present these are Actus Reus, mens rea or strict liability and absence of defence. Strict liability offences are generally offences that have been deemed strict liability by a written law that was passed by a legislative body (statute). Statutory strict liability offences include offences relating to the preparation of food, the possession of unlawful weapons and drugs, and driving offences such as drink driving, driving with no insurance and speeding. A crime of strict liability is where no mens rea is needed in order to prove criminal liability, so the opposing
…show more content…
A landlady rented out a house to some students, it was later found that while renting the premises they took drugs, as of a result the landlady was convicted of allowing cannabis to be smoked on her premises. However the landlady did not live on the premises and had no knowledge that the students she rented her property to were doing any drugs. The offence was deemed to be one of strict liability. However the conviction was later quashed by the House of Lords who said that it was essential for the defendant to have knowledge of what her premises was being used for, and since she had no such knowledge her conviction could not stand, therefore declaring that this offence was not one of strict liability. This was the right decision for the House of Lords to make as it would be wholly unjust to punish the landlady for a crime that she had neither any part in or any knowledge of. In this case the use of strict liability was so unjustified that the House of Lords had to step in a quashed the conviction at a later date as they themselves realized that it would have been unjust for the landlady to be convicted on those charges. This is an example of how the use of strict liability in criminal offences can be
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
It is possible to hold that Stone and Dobinson caused the victims death because there was a legal duty on the Defendants(D) to care for the deceased(V), which they accepted. Given that they had voluntarily undertaken responsibility of the provision of V’s basic needs and that V occupied a room in the house (there was also some indication that the family relationship between V and one of the defendants had also contributed to the duty), once helplessness supervened The victim was dependant and reasonably relied upon stone and Dobinson, and in the absence of any steps to dissociate themselves from responsibility by placing her in the care of others (although there are some signs that they made attempts to do this), It is this reliance that generates
However, the second premise focuses on aspects of the problem of strict criminal liability and the degree of the punishment that is executed by a legal act of an official. Feinberg’s view of strict liability in terms of criminal offenses in which there is no fault such as hefty fines (or civil penalties) for not obeying traffic laws is that the legal system should hold the same strict liability for imprisonment as well (Feinberg 417). As for the degree of punishment he argues that hard treatment and symbolic condemnation are truly necessary to complete a sufficient definition of
...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on. People are not mind readers and people should be held accountable for their own actions.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
What is the rationale for such offenses? 3) What is a strict obligation offense? What is the basis for such offenses? Strict obligation is when mens rea does not need to be demonstrated to at least one components, in spite of the fact that goal, rashness or learning might be required in connection to different components of the offense. The obligation is strict in light of the fact that individuals will be indicted despite the fact that they were truly oblivious of at least one components that made their demonstrations criminal. They may subsequently not be chargeable in any genuine
In society, as we can not presume one’s innocence, we can not also presume that all judges apply black letter law, and there are no judges who are bias, or whose beliefs and morals ever come into play when ruling on a case. This reform, allows for the opportunity for judges to misconstrue the evidence being given or the seriousness of the offence, as under the Unacceptable Risk Test, one of the indicators were whether they a serious offence has been committed. Rather than setting measurable criteria, like either a summary or indictable offence, the term summary, as stated in the formal review of the Act, that there is “limited guidance in the Act on what constitutes a serious offence” (Hatzistergos, 2014). Therefore leaving judges to interpret and potentially misconstrue, the seriousness of a crime, and creating precedent for all other cases, which could be not what the original legislation intended.
The defendant was a jealous woman who had been romantically involved with a man, Mr Jones, who had then gone on to have a relationship with another woman, Ms Booth, who he later became engaged to in the spring of 1971. The defendant, as a result, went to Ms Booth’s home and poured petrol through her letterbox, she then put newspaper, which she set on fire through also. This quickly ignited and the defendant went straight home without alerting anyone to the blaze, which was spreading. Although Ms Booth and her son were able to escape through a window, her two daughters perished, as they were asphyiciated by the fumes from the flames, which were engulfing their house as they slept. The defendant argued that she was not guilty of murder as she did not intend on causing harm or killing anyone, she had just wanted to frighten Ms Booth and as a result should only be found guilty of manslaughter.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Strict liability arises in the animal context when the animal at issue is either a wild animal or a domestic animal with a known vicious propensity. This principle is the origin of the well-known “one bite” rule for dogs. Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Under a rule of strict liability, proof of causation is a necessary condition for liability. The early common law distinguished between wild and domesticated animals for purposes of imposing liability on their owners. Owners of fierce or wild animals were absolutely liable for harm caused to others. However, owners of domesticated animals, such as dogs, were liable only if they had scienter; that is, the owners were liable only if they knew of the animal’s dangerous or mischievous propensities. Tort law has traditionally sought to balance the “usefulness” of an animal with the risk it represents to the public. Common law torts is a legal structure that seek to allocate risk among the members of society; the more valuable a particular activity to society, the more willing is the society, through its legal rules, to shift risk of the activity to others.
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...
Strict liability offences require “proof that the defendant performed the prohibited conduct, but do not require proof that the defendant was blameworthy” . There are many interpretations of the term, one of the most accepted formal concept details strict liability offences as those ‘that contain at least one material element for which there is no corresponding mens rea requirement.’ Strict liability offences are not usually indictable offences and are generally regulatory. For example in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
subject to any limitations and the UK courts are bound to apply and interpret an Act of Parliament and
The defendant’s conviction for murder was quashed and substituted for manslaughter by the House of Lords, which considered there was not the necessary mens rea for murder. Although this case was decided according to the legislation and known as an improper case for setting guidelines for juries, this judgment came under question too after a year or so in the following case of R v Hancock & Shankland In the case of Hancock & Shankland, Miners