What is Strict Liability?
For some crimes there is no need for the prosecution to prove mens rea. This could be for the whole offence, or for one element of it. These are known as crimes of strict liability. Most of these have been created by statute. They are designed to protect the public, and are generally minor offences.
Identifying Strict Liability Offences
There is a presumption in favour of mens rea, and this is especially strong in truly criminal cases. These offences are likely to result in the D receiving a custodial sentence or have a big impact on their lives the courts have held it is less likely for an offence to be classed as strict liability, mens rea must also be proved.:
Sweet v Parsley-Stephanie Sweet was convicted under The Dangerous Drugs Act 1965: she had sub-let some rooms to students who, unknown to her, smoked cannabis there. She was convicted of being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis. On appeal, her conviction was quashed. The HL decided that this was a “truly criminal” offence and so needed proof of mens rea.
A strict liability offence must be a matter of social concern. These are normally regulatory offences.
Alphacell Ltd.v Woodward - The court decided that the defendants had in fact caused the polluted matter to enter the river, and that strict liability applied. The company was guilty.
Smedleys v Breed - A housewife found a dead caterpillar in a tin of peas she bought from a supermarket. The HL agreed with the lower courts that this was a strict liability offence, and that it did not matter whether or not Smedleys had taken all reasonable care.
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah -
The owners of a shop were aware of the rules about the sale of lottery tickets. They put up notices in their shop, and told staff not to sell any tickets to anyone under the age of 16. Nevertheless one of their staff sold a ticket to an under-age boy, even though he seemed older. They were guilty: liability was strict. No mens rea was needed for the age of the boy.
