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
The High Court of Australia referred to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) as well as the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW). It was concluded that the evidence at the previous trial lacked the proof that security personnel would have stopped the re-entry of the determined gunman who was acting
...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.
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
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 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...
In JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham , the defendant initially took possession of valuable farming and grazing land pursuant to a license which later expired. After the expiration of the license, Graham was asked to vacate the premises, which he did not. Graham remained on the land and continued to run cattle and cut hay which he was originally permitted to do under the license, however, he also conducted other activities which were not specifically permitted under the license. It was found that legal possession comprises the elements of factual possession and the animus possidendi, and that proof of acts of the user inconsistent with the purpose to which the true owner intends to put the land is unnecessary. The House of Lords found that the Grahams were the lawful owners of the land by adverse possession as Pye failed to take possession of his
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability.
DECISION Article 7 “embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and a proscribed penalty’ (SW v United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHRR 363 at para 35 following Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EGRR 397) . An offence must be clearly defined. This is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable. Judicial interpretation to produce clarity is legitimate if the resultant development “is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably have been foreseen” .
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...
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.
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
The defendant was convicted of murder by trial court following the direction in Nedrick that, ‘intention could be found where defendant foresaw a substantial risk of death or injury’ . Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed. However, the House of Lord allowed an appeal and substituted Woolin’s conviction from murder to manslaughter on the basis of the possibility of a jury’s confusion caused by directing on them by the trial judge, when the judge spoke about the ‘substantial risk’.
subject to any limitations and the UK courts are bound to apply and interpret an Act of Parliament and