• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence

Extracts from this document...


Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence (8 marks) Strict liability are offences which require no mens rea. A person can be guilty of the offence by just having the actus reus. This can seem unfair as one may not have the intention to commit the offence but just by having the conduct and consequence is sufficient. For example, in relation to speeding, it is sufficient if one can prove that they are above the speed limit, the intention of speeding is not required. As seen in the case of Larsonneur, the defendant didn't have the intention to return back to the UK, hence there was no mens rea; however, the act of being present in the UK was sufficient for a strict liability offence. Some examples of strict liability offences can include parking and speeding offences, selling unfit food for human consumption, health and safety at work regulations, trade description offences etc. Even though these offences may seem small, they are common as nearly 50% of strict liability cases are taken to court. ...read more.


is as a strict liability offence, it would have the effect to encourage people being more vigilant and knowing the difference between right and wrong. Difficulties arise when the legislation is unclear with regards to the mens rea. This is significantly the problem when the Act of Parliament does not include words which indicate the mens rea. However, they must assume that the mens rea is required especially in criminal offences as per the case of Sweet V Parsley. By having strict liability offences, it is designed to protect the public. For example, selling unfit food for human consumption would be considered as a harmful offence to others. Therefore, it is vital that big companies must employ lawyers to work alongside them to educate and ensure they do not carry any strict liability offences out. This is because, due to the amount of offences there are for strict liability, they can easily be breached as no mens rea is required. Also, if one does not know of their mistake, it would not be considered as reasonable in the eyes of the law. ...read more.


However, strict liability offences illustrate injustice. This is because it goes against the principle that criminal law punishes fault. By having the mens rea difficult to prove, this can be seen as morally doubtful. Even though liability is strict; it is not absolute as a defence maybe available. Defences such as duress; where one is being forced to commit an act, or automatism which is an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing. The case of R V Kumar, illustrates that even though the offence was one of strict liability a defence was available. To conclude with, strict liability requires no mens rea, therefore they provide injustice. This has been seen in the case of Larsonneur and Winzar V Chief Constable of Kent. Also, because these are small offences, some may feel that they should plead guilty even though they are not blameworthy. This can also be seen as injustice as one didn't have the intention to commit it. This was illustrated in the case of Harrow London Borough Council V Shah. However, by having these sorts of offences, it saves court time as well as money. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

Overall, a good attempt.

The conclusion could have been neater, however.

3 stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 05/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Rules of Causation Case. Jess throws paint in Sams eyes. Sam had to go ...

    5 star(s)

    This relates to the scenario because Sam's actions were expected and reasonable for the situation in which he was in.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    despite knowing he was violent towards her daughter before. (He had previously broken the daughters arm) The Partner killed the baby by slamming her head onto a hard surface. By going to work she had failed to take adequate steps to protect her daughter.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    the ordinary conduct of daily life", thus incorporating a point of law from the common law into a statute. The offence of ABH has been clarified through case law, although there are still important issues that remain unresolved.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in ...

    3 star(s)

    For instance, if a parent was genuinely unaware that their child was refusing to eat, they should not be found guilty of neglect because although it is their duty, they were not given the opportunity to act as they were unaware any action was needed.

  1. Discuss the Criminal Liability of Dave for the murder of Edward

    intention, under Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the jury can infer indirect intention if they choose to do so.

  2. Human Trafficking In Australia. This essay will be covering different aspect of human ...

    These days there are many international laws that relate to Human Trafficking and Slavery. On July 1, 2002 the ICC (International Criminal Court) became effective. This court included 74 countries that ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  1. intoxication as a defence

    In the case of Bailey (1983) the defendant was found guilty of grievous bodily harm. The decision of not eating after taking insulin was considered reckless which established the mens rea necessary for the offence. The same idea of recklessness is used in situations involving drugs that have a sedative or soporific effect.

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    wounds ? these were operating on the V when he died, A defendant may wish to argue a novus actus interveniens i.e claim that there was another act which caused the outcome such as medical negligence, unforeseen events and the thin skull rule.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work