The facts were found by the Justices as follows. The vet assured him that it was all right to eat, and so the butcher offered it for sale. At page 149 Lord Reid said this: "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary. However, there are a few rare cases where the defendant has been found guilty even though they did not do the actus reus voluntarily. The salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over 16 years. At the time of the making of the sale Mr Hobday reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that the boy was at least sixteen years old. In that case the defendant was convicted of having in his possession adulterated tobacco, even though he did not know that it was adulterated. indecency carried a maximum penalty of two tears imprisonment. An example of this is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where s 1 sets out the strict liability rule. The respondents were proprietors of Woods Newsagents at Uxbridge Road, Harrow. ", "If any requirement or restriction imposed by regulations made under section 12 is contravened in relation to the promotion of a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery. Interfering with the course of justice especially in relation to court proceedings. However, the court held that knowledge of her age was not required. In strict liability offences there may be no blameworthiness on the part of the defendant. He was served by the defendants daughter in the presence of the defendant. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428; Belfon, R v [1976] 1 WLR 741; Harrrow London BC v Shah [2000] CRIM LR 692; R v K [2001] UKHL 41; Subscribe on YouTube. 4.2.3 Summary of strict liability. By asking a vet to check the meat he had clearly done all that he could not to commit the offence. They allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the magistrates to continue the hearing. Mens rea was required for this part of the actus reus, and he had the necessary intention. It is difficult to reconcile this decision with the decision in Cundy. The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability. A mother was found guilty of failing to secure school attendance for her child. -s.13 - only section without MR - selling to child. In Sherras, even though s 16(1) of the Licensing Act 1872 had express words requiring knowledge, it was held that mens rea was still required for s 16(2), which did not include the word knowingly. Regulatory offences also referred to as quasi-crimes are thought to be strict. Stephen J said: I am of the opinion that the words of the section amount to an absolute prohibition of the sale of liquor to a drunken person, and that the existence of a bona fide mistake as to the condition of the person served is not an answer to the charge, but is a matter only for mitigation of the penalties that may be imposed.. These factors are well established. In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation. She was charged with being 'an alien to whom leave to land in the UK has been refused and was found in the UK'. In Piper Alpha [July 1988], a massive explosion destroying a North Sea oil platform killed 67 out of the 229 people on board. The defendant was told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped in a corridor. required is strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. For s 16(1) the prosecution had to prove that the defendant knew the constable was on duty, while for s 16(2) the prosecution did not have to prove knowledge, but it was open to the defendant to prove that he did not know. This is based on the assumption that strict liability imposes higher standards of care and provides greater levels of protection to the public. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. It was apparent that the director has a greater influence on the conduct of companys manager and the courts were able to identify the guilty act and the managing director as the controlling mind. Alphacell. There was no evidence the defendant had acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. The defendant and his employees made the honest mistaken by not realising that he was drunk. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd(1986) 2 All ER 635. An extreme situation is the case of Larsonneur (1993) (the deportation case) She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police deported her and took her back to the UK, she did not want to go back to the UK. In both cases the sections in the Licensing Act 1872 were expressed in similar words. This is distinguished from an offer which can be defined as a persons willingness to enter into a contract and be bounded by its term and conditions. broadcasting. D1 was in a back room of the premises at the time; D2 was not on the premises. This may involve such matters as regulating the sale of food and alcohol and gaming tickets, the prevention of pollution and the safe use of vehicles. AQA AS La w 239 15 Introduction to criminal liability AQA AS La w 239 liability offences effectively is Harrow LBC v Shah (1999), in which a shopkeeper was convicted of the offence of selling a lottery ticket to a minor child, although he thought, reasonably, that the boy was at least 16 years old. The proof of only actus reus may apply to less serious crimes whereas mens rea is not required in many commercial agreements. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! (See section 1.2.3.). If it was, then the butcher in, Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require. Privy Council started with the assumption that Mens Rea is required before a person can be guilty of a criminal offence, but went on to give four other factors to be considered: Strict liability - e-lawresources.co.uk The defendant supplied drugs to somebody who was using a forged prescription, they were charged under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 for supplying drugs without a doctors prescription. So where an offence is held to be one of strict liability, the following points apply: . I say 'must have been' because it is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.". 44 terms. -judge may use words to gather P's true intent. Issues of social concern cover any, activity which is a potential danger to public health, safety or morals. Alternatively, Joses Apparel Ltd. may be sued under criminal law since the State could take an action against the shop under Trade Description Act (TDA) 1968 which had been created to safeguard consumers interests. The case of Bolton v Stone 1951 points to a failure to prove breach of care; The defendants had taken reasonable care that damage would not happen (wall) If this case, fault will not be proved and the claimant will have lost their case for damages; Consider also the case of Paris v Stepney LBC 1951; Defences. Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. IN DETERMINING whether a defendant "did the act or made the omission charged" for the purposes of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, and assuming insanity, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients constituting the actus reus of the crime alleged, but not the mens rea. 340 words (1 pages) Case Summary. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Day J held this only had the effect of shifting the burden of proof. A . Under a subsection of s 13 in the National Lottery Act 1993 the mens rea was not needed and there were no provisions for a defence of 'due diligence'. The similar rule was applied to a different statute when Tesco was caught in a subsequent case. I do not think it does. This was made clear in the case of Sweet v Parsley (1969) 1 All ER 347. Another example where the defendants took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence but were still guilty, as there was no due diligence defence available, is Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. David Perry (CPS) for the Attorney General; James Turner QC (Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain the relevant section, s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, was silent on mens rea. "The climate of both parliamentary and judicial opinion has been growing less favourable to the recognition of absolute offences over the last few decades; a trend to which, section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, "whether the offences charged were offences of strict liability or required proof of, At page 14 Lord Scarman summarised in five propositions the law relevant to that, Harrow London Borough Council v. Shah and Another, Request a trial to view additional results, Bhola (Customs and Excise Officer II) v Canserve Caribbean Ltd, Nurse and Gibbs, Lawmakers, Law Lords and Legal Fault: Two Tales from the (Thames) River Bank: Sexual Offences Act 2003; R v G and Another, Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The Licensing Approach, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] AC 160 in which the Privy Council considered Wright J's formulation of the principle in Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918, Lord Scarman identified the issue in the appeal as being "whether the offences charged were offences of strict liability or required proof of mens rea as to their essential facts". Prepare a tabular analysis which shows the effects of these transactions on the expanded accounting equation, similar to that shown in Illustration 1-8. . CA held that the section imposed a vicarious liability would mean that the company has the immediate responsibility to provide evidence of precautionary measures had been taken to ensure safety even though workforce at the lower level did not take reasonable practicable measures. The Privy Council started with the presumption that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence but went on to give four other factors to be considered. As already stated, where words indicating mens rea are used, the offence is not one of strict liability. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like R v Mohan, Winzar v Chief Constable for Kent, Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah and more. In Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News (1979) 1 All ER 898, the offence of blasphemous libel was held to be one of strict liability. Property Offences: Cases. When giving judgment in the case Day J stated: This police constable comes into the appellants house without his armlet, and with every appearance of being off duty. However, some offences carrying imprisonment have been made strict liability, offences. Published: 7th Aug 2019. The judge, Parke B, ruled that he was guilty even if a nice chemical analysis was needed to discover that the tobacco was adulterated. Sweet V Parsley 1969 Storkwain 1986 Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah 1999 Quasi-criminal offences B V DPP 2000 Blake 1997 Lim Chin Aik V The Queen 1963 Gammon Hong Kong Ltd V Attorney General Hong Kong Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay news 1979 In Harvey v Facey [1863], giving information was not an offer but was just an indication of the lowest price if he decides to sell. This must be a voluntary act on his part. IF A local planning authority wished to delegate to a planning officer the authority to make a decision under reg 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 to the effect that an applicant for planning permission which fell within Sch 2 of the regulations need not submit an environmental statement, such a delegation had to be formally made under s 101 of the Local Government Act 1992. Non-Fatal Offences: Cases. So where an offence is held to be one of strict liability, the following points apply: The defendant must be proved to have done the actus reus. Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports. Prices were not changed in accordance to the sale prices and hence, it was a false description which is a strict liability offence. The first rule is that where an Act of Parliament includes words indicating mens rea (eg knowingly, intentionally, maliciously or permitting), the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. He was acquitted as he didn't know the girl was in the custody of her father, therefore didn't have the mens rea for that aspect. Strict Liability Cases. The starting point in each case is always the samenamely, there is a presumption that included in the ingredients of the offence under consideration is the element of, This was emphasised as long ago as 1970 in the case of, "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that, It is also firmly established that the fact that other sections of the Act expressly require. The defendant, as in Woodrow, is guilty simply because he has done a prohibited act. Criminal contempt of court used to be a strict liability offence at common law. This is so for both common law and statutory offences. The defendant assumed that he was not on duty. Jordan_Watts1. Prince knew that the girl he took was in the possession of her father but believed, on reasonable grounds, that she was aged 18. Recent cases, including the Court of Appeal's judgment in Bou-Simon v BGC Brokers LP and the (as yet unreported) case of Harrow LBC v Engie Regeneration (Apollo) Ltd (2018) (TCC), provide a useful reminder of the strict constraints on implying terms into a commercial contract. The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern; public safety is such an issue. She refused. Storkwain prince hibbert harrow LBC v shah and shah cundy v le corqe callow v tillstone Mens rea need not to be proved. . Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. Clearly, before any question of criminal liability attaching to the respondents can arise, the contravention must be proved as against their employee, Mr Hobday who, as the Justices found, reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that the purchaser of the ticket was at least 16. The Magistrates thought his liability was strict and found him guilty. R v St Edmundsbury Borough Council, ex p Watson; QBD, Crown Office List (Hooper J) 13 Apr 1999. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish Police deported her and took her back to the UK, against her wishes. It states: ROBBERY, BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES IN THE THEFT ACTS, Arbitration of International Business Disputes, Brownlies Principles of Public International Law, Health and Human Rights in a Changing World, he Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free_ Laws for the Internet Age, International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication, International Maritime Conventions (Volume 3), International Sales Law A Guide to the CISG, Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect, Research on Selected China's Legal Issues of E-Business, Serving the Rule of International Maritime Law, Stephen Cretney-Family Law in the Twentieth Century_ A History-Oxford University Press (2003), The Impact of Corruption on International Commercial Contracts, Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, Trade Policy between Law Diplomacy and Scholarship. In the absence of a clear intention in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament.. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Southwark LBC v Mills [1999] 3 WLR 939. Suppose a person was found drunk in a restaurant and was asked to leave. Corporate legal persons (companies and limited liability partnerships LLPs) can be held responsible for unlawful omissions. ", At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. 25th April 1998, during the course of his employment, Mr Hobday sold a national lottery ticket to a young boy who was thirteen-and-a-half. The policeman had removed his armband. He said this: "The climate of both parliamentary and judicial opinion has been growing less favourable to the recognition of absolute offences over the last few decades; a trend to which section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 bear witness in the case of Parliament, and in the case of the Judiciary, is illustrated by the speeches of this House in Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132. The defendant rented a farmhouse and let it out to students. Strict liability is very rare in common law offences. They were convicted of unlawfully supplying liquor to a police officer on duty. Robert Denman (Joseph Aaron & Co, Ilford) for the plaintiff; Timothy Fancourt (Collyer-Bristow) for the first defendant; Justin Althaus (Armstrong & Co) for Mr & Mrs Uddin. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah the defendants were charged under s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery etc. A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. The other case is Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983; Co/1111/82 (Lexis), QBD. Strict liability Flashcards | Quizlet 1) The presumption of mens rea applies to statutory offences. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Both of these involve contraventions of the Licensing Act 1872. The defendant, who was an alien, had been ordered to leave the United Kingdom. For nearly all strict liability offences it must be proved that the defendant did the relevant actus reus. . Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require mens rea, but there are no modern cases. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd (1986). In both these cases the charge against the defendant was that he had taken an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father against his will, contrary to s 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. D rented a farmhouse and let it out to students. This case involved s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, which provides that no person shall supply specified medicinal products except in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The defendant was a licensee of a public house. Ben_Snaith. (Vice President of the Queen's Bench Division) and. Proof will NOT be required for one aspect of the mens rea but may be required for another. There were no words in the section requiring the defendant to have knowledge that a constable was off duty. Hence, the company may be liable and be subjected to compensate Oliver. In Hibbert the defendant met a girl aged 14 on the street. Advanced A.I. When a consumer is misled, Joses Apparel Ltd. may be subjected to a fine up to 5000 in the magistrates courts. On. It was in fact unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unfit meat for sale. He had met the girl (14) on the street and taken her to another place where they had sex. This subsection does not, include any words indicating either that mens rea is required or that it is, not, nor does it contain any provision for the defence of due diligence. Their defence was that this was the fault of the store manager for not checking the shelves properly and it was due to this that the items were advertised at a lower price. 3) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is of truly criminal character. The defendant was charged with taking an unamrried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father against his will (s55 OAPA 1861). 53 terms. Leave given - Shah v Shah and others CA 7-Mar-2001 Renewed application for permission to appeal - whether deed validly signed. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. The courts will always start with this presumption, but if they decide that the offence does not require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus, then the offence is one of strict liability. However, the fact that other sections specifically require mens rea does not mean that the courts will automatically make the offence without express words of mens rea one of strict liability. In the Divisional Court Goff LJ justified the conviction: [L]ooking at the purpose of this particular offence, it is designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by persons who are drunk in a public place. The defendant did not know that cannabis was being smoked there. Strict Liability: Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Cited by: Cited - Wilson v Truelove ChD 25-Mar-2003 The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act. This was emphasised as long ago as 1970 in the case of. This was upheld in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1983] concerning unilateral contract. In Cundy the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person, contrary to s 13 of the Act. The surprising fact is that about half of all statutory offences are strict liability. Despite this the House of Lords held that the Divisional Court was right to direct the magistrates to convict D. The pharmacists had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription, and this was enough to make them guilty of the offence. Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1998); CA, Crim Div (Judge LJ, Sachs, Klevan JJ) 25 Mar 1999. Regulation 3 provides: "No National Lottery ticket shall be sold by or to a person who has not attained the age of 16 years.". 1. A Callow v Tillstone. The prosecution has to prove that an individual was responsible and he or she played the role of the controlling mind. Citations: [1895] 1 QB 918. (a) the promoter of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence, except if the contravention occurred without the consent or connivance of the promoter and the promoter exercised all due diligence to prevent such a contravention, (b) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the promoter, or any person purporting to act in such a capacity, shall be guilty of an offence if he consented to or connived at the contravention or if the contravention was attributable to any neglect on his part, and. There does not seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. which they had installed failed, causing polluted effluent to overflow into a river. 24 Q In the case of Callow v Tillstone 1900 how did D take all possible care yet was still unable to avoid liability? 82 at p. 90 Lord Diplock returned to the subject. One of their staff sold a lottery ticket to a 13-year-old boy without asking for proof of age. He had sat next to a 13 year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with him. Such offences are very rare. There are various aspects to the exercise. The draft Criminal Code of 1989 included provision for a general defence of due diligence, but the Code has never been enacted. Subjects | Law Notes | Criminal Law. In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation. On appeal, it was held that it was not an offer for sale but was merely an Invitation to Treat. In Woodrow this meant proving that he was in possession of the adulterated tobacco.
harrow lbc v shah case summary