WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

General elements of criminal liability 161 2. Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern? This is an issue of concern to general society at a given time. Issues of social concern can shift over time but tend to relate to offences such as selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors, pollution and public safety. It is felt that imposing strict liability for crimes that relate to issues of social concern will promote extra vigilance and care on the part of defendants to not commit the offence. Of course, this is only appropriate for regulatory offences and the distinction drawn in Sweet v Parsley (1970) is still applicable. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999) The defendants were convicted of selling National Lottery tickets to a child under 16. It did not matter that they believed the child to be over 16: the offence was committed as soon as they had sold the lottery ticket to a person under 16. The courts felt this offence related to an issue of social concern. 3. Did Parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability by using certain words in a statute? Although there is no official list of words that point towards a crime being one of strict liability, Parliament uses some words when drafting statutes that point to mens rea being required. ‘Mens rea words’ include intentionally , recklessly and knowingly . Other words have generally been interpreted by judges as pointing towards no mens rea being required. These include possession and cause . Alphacell v Woodward (1972) The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river. The pumps that prevented the pollution from overflowing into the river had become clogged with leaves and, as a result, the matter leaked into the river. It was irrelevant that the defendants had no idea the pumps were clogged with leaves and had not wanted any contamination to enter the river. They had caused the polluted matter to enter the river and were therefore liable. 4. The gravity of the punishment The more serious the criminal offence and punishment that can be imposed, the less likely it is to be one of strict liability. This reflects the fact that, with strict liability, defendants can be convicted without fault. This can be problematic as the associated small penalties do not always act as a deterrent . On the other hand, as in the case of Callow v Tillstone (1900) , the damage to a small business’s reputation can be far greater than the impact of a small fine. Callow v Tillstone (1900) A butcher was convicted of ‘exposing unfit meat for sale’. The butcher was found guilty even though he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence by having the carcass inspected by a vet who said it was safe to eat. Advantages and disadvantages of strict liability ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Time and cost of proving mens rea: Mens rea can be difficult to prove and, if it had to be proved for every offence, the courts would be clogged with cases and some guilty individuals may escape conviction. This in turn would increase court costs. Possibility of injustice: Liability is imposed without fault on the part of the defendant. Individuals may have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the behaviour and be unaware they are committing the illegal act yet still face conviction. The injustice is magnified further with absolute liability offences as in the case of Larsonneur (1933) . Protection of society by promoting a higher standard of care: As strict liability offences are easy to prove, individuals may take more care when acting in certain situations, thereby protecting society from harmful behaviour. Role of judges: Judges are interpreting what they think Parliament intended in an Act. This gives judges an increased role and there is a risk of inconsistency in the imposition of strict liability. Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 Licensing Act 1872 . It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, should have known or should have used reasonable care to detect that the person was intoxicated. As soon as the defendant sold the alcohol to the drunken person, he was guilty of the offence. KEY CASE deterrent: something that discourages a particular action. KEY TERMINOLOGY Though punishments are usually small for strict liability offences, the case of Gammon is an exception. In this case the penalty was a fine of up to $250,000 or three years’ imprisonment. GRADE BOOST Many of the cases in this section overlap to demonstrate more than one factor. For example, Alphacell v Woodward (1972) can be used to show how some words to indicate strict liability were intended by Parliament but it was also an issue of social concern (pollution). Think about the other cases described in this section and how they may demonstrate more than one of the factors. STRETCH AND CHALLENGE