WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

162 Criminal Law ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES The ease of imposing strict liability acts as a deterrent: Individuals are deterred from carrying out the offending behaviour in the knowledge that a prosecution is likely to result in a conviction, due to only having to prove the actus reus. Is strict liability actually a deterrent? As a result of the small penalties imposed for strict liability, some argue that it does not act as a deterrent. For example, large businesses may continue to carry out the offending behaviour (such as pollution), paying the small fines and not changing their practices. In addition, to act as a deterrent it is argued that a person ought to have knowledge that what they are doing is wrong so they could have taken steps to prevent it. This is not always the case with strict liability offences. Proportionality of the punishment appropriate for strict liability: Strict liability offences tend to carry small penalties. This is appropriate as defendants may be unaware they are committing the offence or have taken all reasonable steps to avoid doing so. Does strict liability breach the European Convention on Human Rights? There has been some debate over whether, according to Article 6(2) ECHR , everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. R v G (2008) appears to allow the imposition of strict liability. Proposal for reform The Law Commission proposed a Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill (1977) , where the onus would be on Parliament, if it wished to create an offence of strict liability, to make this clear in the Act of Parliament. It is Parliament’s responsibility to decide the nature of criminal liability and to provide a clear indication to judges of whether it intended to create a crime with no requirement of mens rea. This would prevent some of the confusion and inconsistency of judicial decisions. Exam Skills Strict liability as an aspect of this topic is likely to feature as a question in its own right. It lends itself to an explanation and evaluation of the current law. Think of cases to demonstrate the ways that courts have protected society through the imposition of strict liability. Use these cases to provide the evaluation required for higher marks. • Sale of unfit meat: Callow v Tillstone (1900) . • Pollution: Alphacell v Woodward (1972) . • Dangerous buildings: Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985) . • Food hygiene: Callow v Tillstone (1900) . GRADE BOOST 1. A harsh sentence is more likely to be a deterrent from committing crime. Explain how deterrence is linked to theories of punishment. 2. Explore the following cases and consider how the question of strict liability in relation to human rights was dealt with by the courts: • Hansen v Denmark (1995) • Salabiaku v France (1988) . STRETCH AND CHALLENGE A criminal case has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt Actus reus and mens rea needed for the commission of a criminal offence Factual causation: • ‘But for’ test: R v White (1910) • De minimis rule: R v Pagett (1983) Legal causation: • The injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death: R v Smith (1959) , Jordan (1956) • The thin skull test: R v Blaue (1975) • Novus actus interveniens: R v Pagett (1983) Contemporaneity rule : coincidence of actus reus and mens rea : • Continuing acts: Fagan v MPC (1969) • Single transaction of events: Thabo Meli (1954) • Transferred malice: Latimer (1986) Summary: General elements of criminal liability