WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

160 Criminal Law Strict liability Most crimes require both actus reus and mens rea. However, there is a group of offences known as strict liability where only the actus reus needs to be proved to establish liability. With these offences, there is no need to prove mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus and liability is imposed without fault on the part of the defendant. As a result, some people feel strict liability offences are unfair but, as they cover relatively minor crimes, it is generally accepted that they are needed to allow society to run smoothly. They tend to cover regulatory offences such as food hygiene, parking offences and polluting the environment. For strict liability offences, the defence of mistake is not available. There is also a group of crimes known as absolute liability offences. These require proof of actus reus only but are not concerned with whether the actus reus is voluntary. (See the section about elements of crime on page 154, which refers to these offences as ‘state of affairs’ crimes and demonstrates through the cases of Winzar (1983) and Larsonneur (1933) that the actus reus need not be controlled by the defendant). Though most strict liability offences are statutory offences, Parliament does not always make it clear whether mens rea is required. It is therefore for judges to decide whether an offence should be one of strict liability. Judges start with the presumption that mens rea is always required and no offence is strict liability. They then consider four factors to confirm or rebut this presumption. The four Gammon factors The case of Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985) , where builders had failed to follow exact plans and part of the building they had constructed collapsed, confirmed that the starting point for a judge is to presume that mens rea is always required before a person can be found guilty of a criminal offence. This case laid down four Gammon factors the courts need to consider in determining if an offence is one of strict liability. Judges also use statutory interpretation to interpret statutes to determine if Parliament intended the offence to be one of strict liability. Judges have to use aids of interpretation such as the literal, golden, mischief and purposive approaches to determine if an offence was intended to be one of strict liability. They also have to use rules of language and the presumption that mens rea is required. 1. Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime? If the offence is regulatory in nature (meaning not criminal, minor, or with no moral issue involved) the offence is more likely to be classed as strict liability. A case that considered this question is Sweet v Parsley (1970) . Sweet v Parsley (1970) Ms Sweet sublet her property to a group of tenants, retaining a room for herself but hardly spending any time there. The police searched the property and found cannabis. Ms Sweet was convicted under s5 Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (now replaced), of ‘being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis’. She appealed, alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not have reasonably been expected to have such knowledge. On appeal, her conviction was overturned, with Lord Reid acknowledging that strict liability was only appropriate for ‘quasi-crimes’ where no real moral issue was involved. Ms Sweet’s conviction had caused her to lose her job and had damaged her reputation. It was felt that strict liability was inappropriate and the offence should be classed as a ‘true crime’ requiring mens rea. She did not have any mens rea so her conviction was quashed. presumption: a starting point for the courts, which presume certain facts to be true unless there is a greater balance of evidence to the contrary that disproves the presumption. KEY TERMINOLOGY