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

Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of s deciding case. This essay will be exploring the various reasons for and against strict liability which will be complemented with a case study. Strict liability involves offences in which the crimes do not require mens rea and does not have to be proved. The defendant need not to have intended or known about the consequences of the crimes as it is enough to have the actus rea at present to be convicted. Overall strict liability cases are less serious such as regulatory offences involving road safety, pollution or food hygiene as convictions would be very hard to obtain if the prosecution had to prove recklessness, negligence or intent in every case, and it would cost a lot of money to bring every single one of these cases to court, so therefore strict liability makes law implementation more resourceful. Parliament sometimes gives in to the process of proving the guilty mind as most strict liability cases are statutory as it is for example in the publics interest against the selling off unfit food. Such as the case of Callow v Tillstone (1900) ...read more.

Middle

the defendants charged of selling a lottery ticket to and underage boy. They appealed however it was held that obligation of strict liability would encourage better awareness in preventing commissions of such an offence. The public also is protected from unsafe buildings for example in the case of Atkinson v Sir Alfred McAlpine 1974 building company were convicted under the Asbeston Regulations for failing to state that it was using crocidolite, even thought it was unaware of this fact. Likewise in Gammon v AG for Hong Kong 1984, the defendants were found accountable when a part of the building, they were helping to construct collapsed, even though the company was oblivious that the plans were not being followed. There are however many negative qualities of using strict liability the major one is that a criminal conviction is imposed to a company of person in which they did not foresee making them helpless. However a reason against strict liability is that the courts themselves often face problems in identifying such offences as many statutes are not clear whether an offence of strict liability has been created ands that strict liability goes against the saying that a person is innocent until proven guilty, like in the case of Gammon V AG for Hong Kong 1984. ...read more.

Conclusion

There are many problems with the way that strict liability is currently forced. In some case I have also shown that in some cases the imposition of strict liability can be both unfair and unjust. Problems with strict liability include that it may not be successful in raising standards as people often do not realise that they are wrongdoing, decisions are often unfair and unjust, and there is also complexity in identifying strict liability offences and inconsistency with their attitude and decisions. Judgements often lack clarity and decisions with regard to strict liability which can lead to conclusions that are the opposite of what was intended by the law. A massive penalty and criminal conviction are imposed on the defendant for an offence even thought they may not have been able to foreseen/intended or been able to prevent. However strict liability ensures that the public is protected from unfit food. The public and countryside is better protected against pollution. People are discouraged from possessing unlawful weapons and drugs. The public is protected against hazardous buildings. People attempt to improve standards so they are not to be liable for committing a criminal offence. To conclude strict liability is essential in society as there would be a devastating and damaging effect if it was eliminated, but the statutes should be worded with great consideration to stop some confusion. ...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 Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

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 Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    that they receive , she then goes on to say that there is little assistance for a victim of discrimination where many of the cases are abandoned half way through. In large companies or in any cases relating to employment the employers tend to always hire solicitors to aid them,

  2. Revision of reforms

    - MR does not match potential seriousness (Intent/Reck. To some harm - Mowatt) - Wasn't until DIca/Konzani it was decided transmission of disease was covered. What diseases are GBH? - Easier to convict minorities as sub-saharan strain of HIV is easier to detect = Discrimination - Recklessly causing serious injury

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    It is important to note that the basics of causation lie entirely within the common law. As common law is the basis for the principle of causation, it is prudent to consider some key cases which establish it. The first of which is the case of R.

  2. Criminal Law - reference case.

    In this case, Aslam had no authority to use the card as his account was closed. Therefore, he acted dishonestly to obtain a pecuniary advantage. However, in his defence he could argue there was a lack of causation in the transaction.

  1. Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of ...

    Precedent and reason might have been on the side of the dissentients but the House of Lords in R. v. Lawrence (1982) A.C. 510, where the accused was charged with causing death by dangerous driving contrary to s.1 Road Traffic Act 1972 upheld the Caldwell test of recklessness.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    It can be considered then that a defendant in a reckless state of mind is less at fault than one possessing the necessary intention, so these crimes tend to carry less maximum prison sentences for example. Involuntary manslaughter, section20 GBH and wounding offence, assault and ABH are all included in the definition of basic intent crimes.

  1. Fault Essay

    the chain of causation and therefore shift responsibility from the D onto them. This would however have to be unforeseeable or so extraordinary that D's contribution would be regarded as insignificant. Negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain as it would be inappropriate to shift responsibility from D onto the

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    parties, it is owed to definite persons In the case of tort a contract is not involved, but this does not mean an individual or company cannot be held accountable for their actions. The injured individual cannot file for a contractual liability claim, but he can make a file for a tortuous claim.

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