STRICT LIABILITY
mens rea
actus reus + OR + no defence =
criminal
Strict liability Liability
:
absence of MR
STRICT LIABILITY
- MR
only required for one part of the offence
I prosecution does not need to prove MR
>
-
designed regulate society & protect the
to vulnerable
- Ar must be proved I voluntary
Sweet v Parsley Rv Prince
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
>
- No need for MR
>
- AR does not need to be voluntary
4 I State of affaur)
RV Larsonneur Rv Winzar
No fault
llabiuty -
D can be
guilty if his voluntary act
Inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence
Callow v Tillstone
No due diligence defence -
D did
everything in their power not
to commit the Offence Harrow LBC v Shah Shah
D can be
acquitted If they made an honest Mistake not
available
Cundy vLeCocq Sherras v De Rutzen
7
as a
defence
~Saves the time V places the onus on individuals
legal system
racts as a deterrent to be responsible for their
~ offences
quasi-criminal actions
mens rea
actus reus + OR + no defence =
criminal
Strict liability Liability
:
absence of MR
STRICT LIABILITY
- MR
only required for one part of the offence
I prosecution does not need to prove MR
>
-
designed regulate society & protect the
to vulnerable
- Ar must be proved I voluntary
Sweet v Parsley Rv Prince
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
>
- No need for MR
>
- AR does not need to be voluntary
4 I State of affaur)
RV Larsonneur Rv Winzar
No fault
llabiuty -
D can be
guilty if his voluntary act
Inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence
Callow v Tillstone
No due diligence defence -
D did
everything in their power not
to commit the Offence Harrow LBC v Shah Shah
D can be
acquitted If they made an honest Mistake not
available
Cundy vLeCocq Sherras v De Rutzen
7
as a
defence
~Saves the time V places the onus on individuals
legal system
racts as a deterrent to be responsible for their
~ offences
quasi-criminal actions
