The vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory offences. However, statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict liability. Where a statute uses terms such as "knowingly" or "recklessly" then the offence being created is one that requires mens rea. Alternatively, it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being created. In many cases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or not.
Jetskis Are Us might well be held to be strictly liable for breach of the Inshore Water Safety Act, specifically for not having “a licence from the relevant local authority”. A case which would support this assertion would be that of R V Blake (1996).
Here, investigating officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence, contrary to s1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.
The Court of Appeal held that the offence was a strict liability offence. The Court applied Lord Scarman's principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favour of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, "truly criminal", yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence.
In light of the above case, it may be that Jetskis Are Us are found to be liable as they had failed to wait until actual evidence of a licence being granted was available before renting Jetskis to the public.
The case of Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972) could be suggested to have a very similar basis. In the case, The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant's factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated:
“If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred.”
Therefore, the company was held liable. Due to the evidence cited above, it certainly appears as if Jetskis Are Us would likely be strictly criminally liable for allowing their vehicles to be used.
Sharp and Jones be held to be vicariously liable for similar offences due to their special relationship with the principal offender.
Hugh might also be liable as the Inshore Waters Safety Act prohibits the use of the Jetskis until a licence has been obtained. Therefore, he may be liable, although could likely argue a defence of mistake, as he honestly and genuinely did not know of the lack of a licence on the part of Jetskis Are Us.
