Briefly Explain The Meaning Of
Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability.
For strict liability offences it can be said that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.
It is often said that no mens rea is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.
Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.
In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without any degree of fault. The defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may be enough that the situation has arisen.
The case of Prince 1875 is a good example of this and, whilst the legal principles behind the decision have now been criticised as a result of B v DPP (2000), it is often cited as an example of the no fault principle. In this case Prince was charged with an offence under S.55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was charged with unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents. He was convicted despite the fact that she looked much older than her actual 13 years and had led Prince to believe she was 18. The Act did not include the words ‘knowingly’ or ‘unknowingly’ and so the court held that liability arose when the necessary act was committed.
In most cases it is usually obvious as to whether the offence is a
For strict liability offences it can be said that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.
It is often said that no mens rea is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.
Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.
In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without any degree of fault. The defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may be enough that the situation has arisen.
The case of Prince 1875 is a good example of this and, whilst the legal principles behind the decision have now been criticised as a result of B v DPP (2000), it is often cited as an example of the no fault principle. In this case Prince was charged with an offence under S.55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was charged with unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents. He was convicted despite the fact that she looked much older than her actual 13 years and had led Prince to believe she was 18. The Act did not include the words ‘knowingly’ or ‘unknowingly’ and so the court held that liability arose when the necessary act was committed.
In most cases it is usually obvious as to whether the offence is a