1. ‘Strict Liability offences promote high standards of behaviour, protect the public and
guard against dangerous activities. They are not only necessary but perfectly justifiable
in a complex modern society.
Consider the validity of this statement using relevant cases to illustrate your answer.
[50 Marks]
Strict liability offences are those offences for which there is no need to prove mens rea for at
least one aspect of the actus reus of the offence. This means that a person is guilty of an
offence despite not intending to commit it or not realising that they have committed it. It is
however required in nearly all strict liability offences to prove that the defendant did the
relevant actus reus voluntarily. This is how the offences differ from those of absolute liability
where neither mens rea nor a voluntary act is required to be proven. (Larsonneur/Winzar).
The idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated in the cases of Prince
(1875) and Hibbert (1869). In both cases the D was charged with taking an unmarried girl
under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father, against his will, contrary to s.55 of
the PAPA 1861. Prince knew that the girl was in the possession of her father but believed, on
reasonable grounds, that she was aged 18. He was convicted as mens rea was required for
the ‘taking the girl out of the father’s possession’ part of the actus reus, but knowledge of
her age was not required. In Hibbert however, it could not be proven that D knew that a girl
that he met on the street was in the possession of her father and so he was found not guilty
as intention was not proven.
Most strict liability offences are statutory and created by Parliament. Over 50% of all
statutory offences are strict liability and this amounts to 3,500 offences. However, there are
also strict liability offences created by judges – common law offences. These include:
criminal libel, blasphemous libel and contempt of court.
An example of blasphemous libel being a strict liability offence is Lemon and Whitehouse v
Gay News. In that case the newspaper published an article about gay acts being done to the
body of Christ after his crucifixion. The defendant claimed that they didn’t know that they
were blaspheming, but they were still found guilty as it was considered to be a strict liability
offence.
There is no defence of due diligence for strict liability offences. This means that the person is
guilty of an offence even though he took all the reasonable steps and precautions not to
commit the crime. The case example is Callow v Tillstone, where a butcher took his meat to
the veterinarian to check its suitability for human consumption. The vet assured him that it
was but in fact it wasn’t. The butcher was found guilty despite him taking all reasonable
steps to prevent the commission of a crime. Another case that illustrates this point is
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain. In this case the defendant supplied
medications on forged prescriptions, which he did not know were forged. He was found
guilty because it was a strict liability offence.
All the above cases demonstrate the harshness of strict liability offences, especially in the
case of Callow v Tillstone. The concept of strict liability might be considered to go against the
principles of criminal law, where mens rea is considered an essential element because
someone’s liberty at state. It could be argued that it is NEVER just to convict someone of a

2. crime that they did not intend to commit. However champions of the need for strict liability
offences will argue that the outcome of the above cases was justifiable on public safety
grounds.
Parliament does provide a due diligence defence for some strict liability offences, but they
do so on an ‘ad hoc’ and inconsistent basis.
In Harlow LBC v Shah and Shah, shop assistants sold lottery tickets to a 13 year old child,
which is against the law as the minimum age is 16. The problem was that the owners of that
shop, the defendants, had taken all reasonable steps by telling their employees to check
people for ID if they had doubts about their age. They constantly reminded staff. The
assistant claimed that he thought the child was over 16, yet the defendants were found
guilty as there was no due diligence defence contained in the act of parliament.
There is also no defence of mistake for strict liability offences. So even if the defendant
made a genuine mistake about some facts, they will still be found guilty. This was illustrated
by cases such as Cundy v Le Cocq, which involved the defendant selling intoxicating liquor to
a drunk person who they did not believe was drunk (they were mistaken) as he was quiet
and did not display any signs of being intoxicated. The defendant was found guilty. In direct
contrast in the case of Sharass v De Rutzen, the defendant sold alcohol to a police constable
on duty. They did not realise that he was on duty because he had removed the arm band
indicating that he was. The defendant was found not guilty as there was nothing she could
have done. Even if she had asked the constable if he was on duty he could have lied. These
two cases show inconsistent application of the defence.
The test for deciding whether an offence was one of strict liability was established in
Gammon (Hong Kong) Limited v AG for Hong Kong. This case concerned building regulations
that were not kept to by the defendant.
The test says that courts need to start with the presumption of mens rea. Examples of this
presumption are to be found in the cases of Sweet v Parsley and the more recent cases of B
v DPP and R v K. In those cases the defendants were found not guilty as in Sweet v Parsley
the D didn’t know that cannabis was being grown in property that she rented out and in B v
DPP, the D didn’t know that the girl he asked to perform oral sex on him was under the age
of 14. Because the offences would have resulted in social stigma being attached to the
defendants as well as a criminal record and maybe a prison sentence, the courts held that it
was necessary to prove that they intended to commit the crime. Gammon states that the
more serious the crime the stronger the presumption of mens rea. It is a stronger
presumption for ‘truly criminal’ crimes whereas not as strong for ‘quasi crimes. In the main
strict liability offences are considered to be quasi-crimes which are regulatory in nature and
punishable with fines. They regulate sales of food (Callow v Tillstone), gaming ticket sales
(Harlow v LBC v Shah and Shah), pollution (Alphacell), and road traffic offences. However,
cases such as Gammon itself and Storkwain involved a possible maximum sentence of
imprisonment. It is arguable that it is unjust to dispense with the need to prove mens rea
where the D is liable to imprisonment. This could be held as contrary to the principles of
human rights (art 6(2) presumption of innocence), a point which was raised in the case of R v
G. It was however, decided in this case of rape of a child under 13, that although the
particular article required the D to be presumed innocent, it did not say anything about what
the mental or other elements of the offence should be. This case also illustrates that
sometimes, defendants who will suffer great social stigma will still be found guilty of strict
liability offences. D put on the sex offenders register. It is however argued in that the

3. harshness of the offence can be addressed if a person is not blameworthy by reducing the
sentence given. A judge can pass a very lenient sentence where he feels that the defendant’s
level of blameworthiness was low.
The Gammon test also states that the presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if this
is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute. Parliament uses
‘mens rea’ words to indicate an offence where it is necessary to prove mens rea, such as
‘maliciously’ or ‘knowingly’. If these words are not used in the Act of Parliament it may be
the case that it was intended to be one of strict liability.
The presumption can also only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of
social concern (Blake 1997) such as public safety and if it promotes higher standards and
greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act (i.e. it will make
businesses operate at a high standard). In the case of Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963) it was
stated that it wasn’t enough to be sure that the statute dealt with a grave social evil in order
to infer strict liability. It was also important to consider whether the imposition of strict
liability would assist in the enforcement of regulations. If it did not, then the offence should
not be one of strict liability.
Social utility is the main justification for strict liability offences however there is no evidence
that strict liability offences do lead to higher standards of business. Especially if businesses
take all the precautions and comply with the regulations and are still found guilty. They may
find it a worthless task to comply with regulations if they are going to be found guilty despite
their best efforts. If this were true it would have adverse and counter-productive impact on
the operation of businesses.
The main problem with strict liability offences is that there is no way of knowing whether
parliament intended to make is so or whether they did not realise that that was the effect of
the wording the drafts-person used.
It has therefore been argued that Parliament should make it clear by expressly stating
whether an offence is one of strict liability or not. This would release the courts from
interpretation complications.
Another way of reforming strict liability would be to require each offence to have a defence
of due diligence to avoid injustice as described in the cases explored above. This would be in
line with the law in Australia and Canada.
Another reform possibility would be to have a rule that no offence carrying the penalty of
imprisonment could be an offence of strict liability. Or alternatively, remove regulatory
offences from the criminal system, treating them as administrative issues and removing
stigma. This however could not be applied to mainstream criminal offences of strict liability
such as those in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (R v G 2008).
In summary it would overstate the value of strict liability offences to agree with the
statement of focus. Strict liability offences are not always justifiable and in some instances
do the opposite of promoting high standards of behaviour. Reform is definitely needed.