Scenario Question Plan – Strict Liability
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of strict liability offences. We must
consider the actions of (defendant in the scenario) and the wording in the statute in
light of relevant case law. In defining and explaining the relevant law, it will be
possible to establish whether (offence in scenario) is one of strict liability.
Most crimes require both actus reus and mens rea. However, for strict liability
offences, only the actus reus must be proved to establish liability. There are also
absolute liability offences which require evidence of actus reus only but are not
concerned with whether the actus reus is voluntary. For example, in Larsonneur
(1933) a French National was brought to the UK from Ireland in police custody
against her will and was arrested on arrival for being an illegal alien even though
she had no desire to come to the UK. Acts often do not state whether an offence is
one of strict liability, so it is down to judges to decide.
In Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985), where builders had failed to follow
exact plans and part of the building they had constructed collapsed, it was
confirmed that the starting point for a judge is always to presume that mens rea is
required before a person is found guilty of a criminal offence. This case laid out four
factors the courts need to consider in determining if an offence is one of strict
liability, often known as the Gammon factors.
Identify: Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime?
Define: If the offence is regulatory in nature, meaning it is not criminal, minor or
has no moral issue involved, it is more likely to be classed as strict liability. In Sweet
v Parsley (1970), the defendant was convicted under s5 Dangerous Drugs Act 1965
when the police found cannabis on a property she sublet and barely spent any time.
The defendant’s conviction caused her to lose her job and ruined her reputation. On
appeal, it was held the offence should be classed as a ‘true crime’ requiring mens
rea and so she was acquitted.
Apply: Is the offence in the scenario regulatory in nature? If yes, it is more likely to
be one of strict liability and the defendant may therefore be liable.
Identify: Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern?
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of strict liability offences. We must
consider the actions of (defendant in the scenario) and the wording in the statute in
light of relevant case law. In defining and explaining the relevant law, it will be
possible to establish whether (offence in scenario) is one of strict liability.
Most crimes require both actus reus and mens rea. However, for strict liability
offences, only the actus reus must be proved to establish liability. There are also
absolute liability offences which require evidence of actus reus only but are not
concerned with whether the actus reus is voluntary. For example, in Larsonneur
(1933) a French National was brought to the UK from Ireland in police custody
against her will and was arrested on arrival for being an illegal alien even though
she had no desire to come to the UK. Acts often do not state whether an offence is
one of strict liability, so it is down to judges to decide.
In Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney General (1985), where builders had failed to follow
exact plans and part of the building they had constructed collapsed, it was
confirmed that the starting point for a judge is always to presume that mens rea is
required before a person is found guilty of a criminal offence. This case laid out four
factors the courts need to consider in determining if an offence is one of strict
liability, often known as the Gammon factors.
Identify: Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime?
Define: If the offence is regulatory in nature, meaning it is not criminal, minor or
has no moral issue involved, it is more likely to be classed as strict liability. In Sweet
v Parsley (1970), the defendant was convicted under s5 Dangerous Drugs Act 1965
when the police found cannabis on a property she sublet and barely spent any time.
The defendant’s conviction caused her to lose her job and ruined her reputation. On
appeal, it was held the offence should be classed as a ‘true crime’ requiring mens
rea and so she was acquitted.
Apply: Is the offence in the scenario regulatory in nature? If yes, it is more likely to
be one of strict liability and the defendant may therefore be liable.
Identify: Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern?
