“The Imposition Of Strict Liability Offences Is A Necessary Evil In The Fight To Protect The Public From Harm” Discuss

sounds unfair as he had taken due care and reasonable steps to avoid

committing the offence and short of selling the meat the actus reus could not

be avoided. Generally strict liability offences can involve any offence under

road safety, pollution and food hygiene. An example being that of Smedleys v

Breed (1974) where a woman found a dead caterpillar in a tin of peas she

had bought at the supermarket. Despite the fact that Smedleys had used a

good checking system to ensure this kind of event would not happen they

were still held under strict liability.

The courts believe that proof of mens rea and a guilty mind in some cases

can be overlooked if it is in the best interests of the public. Therefore they are

saying that in order to keep the public from harm, they are willing under strict

liability to make a convinction even though someone may have done

everything within their power to prevent themselves from committing that

offence. Where doubt is experienced in a case the courts take a vigilant

attitude in order to avoid any unjust convictions.

The more likely the public are to be harmed by an offence, the more likely

strict liability will be imposed. For example in the case of Alphacell v

Woodward (1972) Alphacell had a factory by the river which had been

installed with straining equipment and pumps which were checked regularly.

The system experienced a complete failure of some sort and as a

consequence some water was polluted. It was argued that they had done

everything they could be expected to in order to prevent this type of situation

but they were still held liable.

In the case of Lemon and Gay News LTD (1979) we can see an example of

a common law offence and of blasphemous libel. Lemon was the editor and

Gay News ltd the publishers of Gay News newspaper. One issue contained

an illustrated poem describing and depicting acts of sodomy and fellatio on

Christ's body immediately after the crucifixion. It also implied that he had

enjoyed homosexual relations with the Apostles. Mary Whitehouse brought a

private prosecution. They were convicted and appealed on the grounds that a

subjective intent to shock and arouse resentment among Christians had to be

proved. The House of Lords held that the intention to publish the words would

suffice. Liability as to whether the words were blasphemous was strict. This

shows how a newspaper can be liable for libel.

There is a presumption that mens rea is required before a person can be

found to be liable which is particularly true when an offence is of a nature that

is truly criminal. This will only be regarded as occurring where the statute

involves issues of social concern. Even then strict liability will only be

regarded as applying where its affect will be to encourage greater vigilance in

preventing harm occurring. Strict Liability is a necessary evil as it raises much

awareness amongst businesses and the public so as to make them more

careful and prevent the public coming to any sort of harm.