1. Strict Liability
…your mind doesn’t matter!
A2 Law 2013-14
Miss Hart

2. Starter…
Can you work out the essentials?
ALL of you will be able to
match the case and the
description in your pairs
MOST of you will be able
to identify the legal rule of
the relevant case
SOME of you will be able
to assign the cases to one
of the key areas we have
looked at.

3. And now for something new…
Look back at your homework
Using your research and the people
around you, work out the answers to the
following questions:
1.
What have the three cases got in
common?
2.
Which case is the odd one out and
why?
3.
Is the outcome in each case a fair and
just result? Why?
Callow v Tillstone 1900
Challenge: Can you create a scenario which
would fit in with these cases, and predict the
outcome for the court?
B v DPP 2000
Sweet v Parsley 1970

4. Strict Liability:
A crime which requires a voluntary actus reus, and no mens rea to at least one element.
It is successfully completed when the actus reus is complete.
An Example:
1.
Why was D liable for the offence?
D is driving along the road in
Swansea. He is driving under the
speed limit, but without a licence or
insurance. V steps onto the road in
front of D with no warning, and D
hits him with the car. V is thrown
across the road and dies of his head
injuries.
2.
Do you think it was fair to convict
him? Why? Why not?
3.
D was given 24 weeks
imprisonment as his punishment,
but this raises a problem. How can
we sentence different DD to
different sentences if all that is
required is the same actus reus?
How do you think the judges and
magistrates approach this
problem?
s.3ZB Road Safety Act 2006

5. Your turn!
Using your homework complete the section on Callow v Tillstone 1900
Facts:
Charge:
1.
Why was D liable for the offence?
2.
Do you think it was fair to convict him? Why? Why not?
3.
The vet, who checked the meat, was found not guilty as his offence required a mens rea, which
he did not have as he genuinely thought it was ok. Is this fair? What critical comment on the
use of strict liability might you make?

6. Starter:
What’s the word or phrase?
Strict liability
No mens rea

7. Where do these offences come from?
The majority are statutory – about half of all statutes contain at least some strict liability.
A Couple of Common Law Areas…
Public Nuisance
Outraging Public
Decency
Blasphemous &
criminal Libel
Criminal
Contempt of
Court
R v Goldstein 2005
R v Laing 2007
(unreported)
Whitehouse v Gay
News 1979
AG v MGN Ltd
2011
Means?
Case:
Still
exists?
Common
or
Statute?
Why do you think that the courts are not fans of strict liability offences?

8. Why have strict liability?
It’s all thanks to those pernickety Victorians who wanted to raise standards.
Woodrow 1845
Cundy v Le Cocq
1884
Sherras v De
Rutzen 1895
How did the divisional court distinguish between
the two cases? Do you agree?

9. Rules of Interpretation:
How do work out if a statute is strict or not?
Gammon v AG of Hong-Kong
In interpreting statutes, the courts will
take the following approach:
 They will presume that every criminal
offence requires a mens rea.
 This presumption will be even stronger
if the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in nature.
 This presumption will only be rebutted if
the statute either clearly says so, or the
outcome of the section clearly implies
it..
 Even then, it will only be rebutted if it is
a matter of social concern; and
 By imposing strict liability it will lead to
greater vigilance and prevent the
prohibited outcome.

10. Have you understood?
Use the rules to determine whether this is a strict
offence or not…
Pharmaceutical Society v
Storkwain
STATUTE:
s.58(2) Medicines Act 1968
“no person shall sell by retail, or supply in
circumstances corresponding to retail sale,
a medicinal product of a description, or
falling within a class, specified in an order
under this section except in accordance
with a prescription given by an appropriate
practitioner”
MAXIMUM PENALTY:
2 years imprisonment

11. Other guidance on interpreting the statute…
1. The Words of the Statute
 All of you should be able to locate
the words, and identify at least one
which imposes mens rea.
 Most of you should be able to
divide the words into mens rea and
no mens rea words.
 Some of you should be able to
explain why some of the words do
not impose a fault element.

12. Starter:
can the put you rules together ?
On each table is a whole
lot of cards, which contain
the Gammon rules.
All of you need to put
them together correctly.
Most of you should be
able to identify the most
important rules
Some of you should be
able to determine what
the ‘red herrings’ have in
common….

13. Other guidance on interpreting the statute…
2. The Presumption of Mens Rea
Sweet v Parsley
“Parliament did not intend to make criminals of those persons who are in no way
blameworthy. Whenever a section is silent as to mens rea, here’s a presumption
that …we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea”
Thinking: The court talks about the difference between a “quasi” criminal and truly criminal
offence. Is this an easy thing to determine?

14. Other guidance on interpreting the statute…
3. Other sections of the same Act
Cundy v Le Cocq
Other sections of the Act did have
mens rea word, but not s.13, so
they must have meant to create
strict liability.
Sherras v De Rutzen
but
Although s.16(2) used the word
knowingly and s.16(1) was silent
they still decided it wasn’t strict!
…so, this is more guidance than anything else! The approach of the courts is probably best summed
up by the House of Lords in Sweet v Parsley:
“the fact that other sections of the act expressly require a mens rea.. is not in itself
enough to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens reas creates a
strict liability offence.”

15. Got it?:
Applying the Assumptions
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969
Facts:
My Lords, the appellant was tried at Inner London Quarter
Sessions on 3 February 1967, on a charge that on 18 November
1966, he had in his possession a substance specified in the
Schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 namely
twenty thousand tablets containing amphetamine sulphate.
When stopped by the police he had in his car, inter alia, two
packages. His defence was that he believed both packages
contained scent. In fact when they were opened in his presence
one was found to contain scent and the other to contain these
tablets.
Charge:
“it shall not be lawful for a person to have in his possession any of
the specified substances unless in specified circumstances”. s.1(1)
Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1960
Task:
Using a range of the rules you have met so far, produce
your law report explaining whether or not s,1(1) imposes strict
liability or not and what this means for the defendant’s liability.
Aim to support your conclusions with reference to at least two
cases.

16. Stop and check…
Have you got the essentials?
Question…
What is a strict liability crime?
What does ‘quasi-criminal’
mean, and why have the courts
invented it?
What is the purpose of a strict
liability offence?
How might the court take D’s
MR into account?
Name three areas covered by
SL

17. Protection of the
environment
Food Safety
Road Traffic Offences
Alphacell v Woodward
Kirkland v Robinson
Callow v Tillstone
Smedleys v Breed
R v Williams
R v Blakely & Sutton
When Has the Court imposed
Strict Liability?
Social Concern
Harrow LBC v Shan and Shah
Warner v MPC
Barnfather v Islington Council
Public Safety
Atkinson v McAlpine
R v Blake
R v Howells
R v Deyemi

18. Consolidating your knowledge…
Area
Social Concern
Environment
Public Welfare
Food Safety
Road Traffic
Offences
Why is it justified
imposing SL here?
Supporting case
(explained)
Why might it not
be justified
Supporting case
(explained)

19. Age, Sex and Strict Liability:
Is D’s reasonable belief that V is older a defence, even if V turns out to be younger?
In the law, the age of consent to sex is
.
This means that a younger V cannot
consent in the law. However, the court will
sometimes accept that either they have
consented in fact, or that D has
reasonably believed V to be older.
However, this is only a defence if the
sexual offence requires a mens rea.
Many of the statutory provisions in this
area have no mens rea in them – and
determining whether Parliament meant
this, or just drafted the law really, really
badly has proven a bit of a headache for
the courts.
Key thinking:
V aged 14, D thinks is 16
V aged 12, D thinks is 16
Should D have a defence in both
situations of reasonable belief?

20. Age, Sex and Strict Liability:
Look at the definition, and the two cases below.
Using what you know of strict liability so far… which D was liable and why?
s.55 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
“Whosoever shall unlawfully take ... any unmarried girl, being under
the age of sixteen years, out of the possession and against the will
of her father... shall be guilty of a misdemeanour .”
R v Prince 1875
R v Hibbert 1869
D ran away with V,
who he thought was
18, but was in fact
13. He knew that she
lived with her father.
D met V in the street, went
with her to a house, slept with
her and kept her there for a
few hours. He then returned
her to where they met, and
she went home to her father.
He thought she was 18, but
she was 14.

21. Age, Sex and Strict Liability:
So that was the historical approach: Knowledge as to age was strict.
What about the modern court?
1. V is under 16, but over 12
1.
What was the problem with s.1 of the act, under which
D was charged?
2.
Which “presumption” was central to the appeal?
3.
Which case do they follow and approve of?
4.
What reasons do they give for deciding that s.1(1) is a
truly criminal, or serious offence?
5.
How does their decision affect D’s conviction and
why?
6.
Which case do they disapprove of and why? Do you
agree?
7.
According to Lord Steyn, which section of the act does
impose strict liability and why do you think that is?
8.
Do you agree with the outcome of the case and why?

22. Age, Sex and Strict Liability:
What happened next?
R v K 2001
s,14 Sexual Offences Act 1956
R v Kumar 2004
s,12 Sexual Offences Act 1956
So, in summary…
R v S 2005
s,12 Sexual Offences Act 1956
For a sexual offence, where the statute
does not stipulate mens rea the court will
assume….
Which means D’s reasonable belief in the
age of D is…

23. Age, Sex and Strict Liability [2]:
Is D’s reasonable belief that V is older a defence, even if V turns out to be under 13?
Thinking point:
Why might the rules be different
here? What is different about an
11 year old, compared to a 15
year old?
R v G 2009
s. 5 Sexual Offences Act 2003
(1) A person commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally penetrates the
vagina, anus or mouth of another person
with his penis; and
(b) the other person is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to
imprisonment for life.

24. What’s the problem?
Can the same offence be strict for one D, and not strict for another?
Sexual Offences Act 2003
s.5
Rape of V aged under 13
s.6
Assault of V under 13 by
penetration
s.7
Sexual Assault of V aged
under 13
s.9
Sexual activity with a child aged under 16
D holds an honest and
reasonable belief that V is
aged over 16 and she is 14
D holds an honest and
reasonable belief that V is
aged over 16 and she is 12
Do you agree with approach of the courts
to the problem of secual offences and the
age of V?

25. So, you’ve been charged with a strict liability offence…
Can I have a defence please?
 Should you have a defence if you
have tried to stop the harm and
failed?
 Can you think of any cases we have
already looked at, where D argued
this as a defence?
Challenge: could we use the distinction
between truly criminal offences and
quasi criminal offences to justify a
defence in some situations?

26. Due Diligence:
A Potential Defence?
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
Why was the defence not open to them?
Some Statutory Exceptions:
Reasonable belief as to
V’s age
s.28 Misuse of Drugs Act
1971
s.6 Sexual Offences Act
1959

27. Got it so far?
Find the mistakes.
Strict liability crimes are very common. To be liable for one you need have no mens
actus
rea. reus. Most of them come from the common law and such as pollution and food
Most of them come from statute and it covers areas it covers areas such as
hygiene. Because it requires no fault element, it fault element, it if D does
pollution and food hygiene. Because it requires no means that even means that
everythingdoes everything he can to avoid still liable as in Callow v Tillstone, where
even if D he can to avoid the harm, he is the harm, he is still liable as in Tallow v
the butcher was found liable for selling diseased meat, even though even though
Tillstone, where the baker was found liable for selling diseased meat,he had had a
vet examine it.
he had had a doctor examine it.
They really started in the Victorian era, and were aimed at raising the standards.
They really started in the Elizabethan era, and were aimed at raising the standards.
One of the first cases is Woodrow, where he was charged with possession of
unadulterated tobacco, even though forgotten he had anyhadhis pocket. pocket.
cocaine, even though he had he had forgotten he in any in his
One very problematic area for the courts is sexual offences and D’s belief that V is
over 16. The key case is B DPP , which confirms if V if V is 10 12 but D thinks
over 18. The key case is R vvK, which confirms thatthat is overoverbut D thinks they
they are older, there will be defence ofof reasonable belief open. This disapproves
are older, there will be a a defence reasonable belief open. This follows the
of the historicalof Prince, whichwhichheld he should have a defence.aMore recently,
historical case case of Prince, also also held he should not have defence. More
recently, the courts have taken a different approach for younger victims as well.
the courts have taken the same approach for younger victims as well.

28. Plenary:
On your Post-it write one argument for or
against the following statement

29. starter:
What’s that case?
1. A shin(i)er bus I've never seen...
Are you really (not) sweet 15?
2. Vet's a strange looking piece of
meat... munch... puke.
7. Not sure blue is my colour boss...
cough cough.
8. Hmm... that parcel smells nice.
3. Jesus Christ!
4. Plans? What plans? Crash!
5. Weed know nothing if we were
teachers...
All of you
should be able to
describe the
facts/name of
the case
6. Pease... cat you see anything in there?
I checked!
9. I've come to take you away on my
noble steed.
10. Dad? What dad? she's an adult...
oops!
Most of you should be able to
identify the area of the law
engaged by the case
Some of you should be
able to determine
whether D’s liability
was strict or not and
why.

30. intro:
So is Strict Liability worth it?
Use the information on the
dominoes, and your own
understanding to complete the
evaluation grid.
All of you need to have a clear list
of positive and negative points
about the current use of Strict
liability
Most of you should be able to
support the points with references
to appropriate supporting cases or
statutes
Some of you should be able to link
up the arguments to create a more
discursive summary of the law.

31. What could we do to improve it?
Reform & change
All offences have a presumption of MR
unless Parliament expressly states
otherwise in the act
What do you think?
Which of these reforms do you
think England and Wales should
adopt?
Use at least one case in your
reasoning!
Make all offences strict liability, and let
the judge take mens rea into account in
sentencing.
Introduce a general defence of due
diligence to all strict liability crimes.

32. Got it?
Complete the revision sheet to check your understanding of strict
liability.
Don’t like the squares?
Produce a revision brainstorm in your
green book using the headings to
organise it!

33. Starter:
Strict or not?
You’re going to see 8 case
clues.
For each, on the whiteboards:
 All of you need to identify the
case
 Most of you need to identify
whether the liability was strict or
not.
 Some of you will be able to
identify the importance of the
case.
No knight in shining armour
Is TheyArmbandin the river? of
their made avetting?a out
No A shocking just D?
conviction jail? lottery?
Salmon pig’s ear
A bus to torch?
Bad saved
after all?
those plans?

34. Applying your understanding:
Section C
Jerome owns a riverside hotel. Simon, the barman, is told not to serve intoxicated
customers. Simon sells lager to Tony who is clearly very drunk. Part of Simon's job is to
clean the drains weekly but he often fails to do this. As a result, toxic chemicals build up
in the drains and leak into the river, killing fish. Jerome buys meat which a vet has
checked. The meat makes the hotel customers ill. Jerome lets a house a mile away to
students. The police raid the house and find that the students are growing cannabis
plants.
What can you tell me about how
answer these successfully?
Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they
apply to the facts in the above scenario.
Statement A: Jerome commits a strict liability offence when Simon sells lager to Tony.
Statement B: Jerome does not commit a strict liability offence when the fish die.
Statement C: Jerome commits a strict liability offence as the house where the students
are growing cannabis plants belongs to him.
Statement D: Jerome does not commit a strict liability offence when customers are ill
after eating meat in his hotel.
to

35. Got the skills?
How many marks would this get and why?
Statement A: Jerome commits a strict liability offence when Simon sells lager to Tony.
• Strict liability offences only require a voluntary actus reus, and no mens
rea, which here is selling lager to someone who is already drunk.
• Simon completes the actus reus when he serves Tony, and as Jerome is
responsible the statement is true.
In your green
books, improve it,
aiming to attain
at least 4 marks.

36. Demonstrate those skills!
Working with the person next to you, produce a complete set
of answers to the remaining statements in your green books.
Statement B: Jerome does not
commit a strict liability offence
when the fish die.
Statement C: Jerome commits a
strict liability offence as the house
where the students are growing
cannabis plants belongs to him.
Statement D: Jerome does not
commit a strict liability offence
when customers are ill after eating
meat in his hotel.

37. What makes a good essay?
Look at the essay you have been given.
Can you be the teacher?
AO1
LEVEL 5 Wide-ranging, accurate,
detailed knowledge with a clear and
confident understanding of the relevant
concepts and principles. Where
appropriate, candidates will be able to
elaborate with wide citation of relevant
statutes and case law – 8 cases
LEVEL 4 Good, well-developed
knowledge with a clear understanding
of the relevant concepts and principles.
Where appropriate, candidates will be
able to elaborate by good citation to
relevant statutes and case-law. 5 cases
LEVEL 3 Adequate knowledge
showing reasonable understanding of
the relevant concepts and principles.
Where appropriate, candidates will be
able to elaborate with some citation of
relevant statutes and case-law. 3 cases
LEVEL 2 Limited knowledge showing
general understanding of the relevant
concepts and principles. There will be
some elaboration of the principles, and
where appropriate with limited reference
to relevant statutes and case-law. 1 case
LEVEL 1 Very limited knowledge of
the basic concepts and principles. There
will be limited points of detail, but
accurate citation of relevant statutes and
case-law will not be expected.
Marks
AO2
Ability to identify correctly the relevant
21-25 and important points of criticism,
showing good understanding of current
debate and proposals for reform, or to
identify all of the relevant points of law in
issue. A high level of ability to develop
arguments and reach a cogent, logical and
well-informed conclusion.
Ability to identify and analyse issues
16-20 central to the question, showing some
understanding of current debate and
proposals for reform, or to identify most of
the relevant points of law in issue. Ability to
develop clear arguments and reach a
sensible and informed conclusion.
Ability to analyse most of the more
11-15 obvious points central to the question or
to identify the main points of law in issue.
Ability to develop arguments and reach a
conclusion.
6-10
1-5
Ability to explain some of the more
obvious points central to the question or
to identify some of the points of law in issue.
A limited ability to produce arguments based
on their material but without a clear focus or
conclusion.
Ability to explain at least one of the
simpler points central to the question or
to identify at least one of the points of law in
issue. The approach may be uncritical and/or
unselective.
Marks
17-20
13-16
9-12
5-8
1-4
You have the indicative
mark scheme in your
summary sheet (the sort
of content that we would
expect)
You need to use that and
this general mark
scheme here to mark it
as a whole.

38. What did the examiner have to say?
The AO1 content in this script is clearly limited but does show general
understanding of the relevant concepts and principles. There is limited
citation. Level 2.
AO1 marks 10
The AO2 content meets the levels of assessment descriptor for Level 2.
Some of the more obvious points are discussed although the quality of
the argument is limited, evaluation is hinted at, and tends to be
repetitive.
AO2 marks 8
There are some errors of spelling and grammar but the material does
have a structure and the candidate has at least completed the answer
in paragraphs with an introduction and brief conclusion.
AO3 marks 2
Total marks 20