Strict liability offenses do not require mens rea (guilty mind). Several cases are discussed that help define the concept. Sweet v Parsley established that mens rea is presumed for criminal offenses. B v DPP reinforced this for serious offenses carrying prison time. The document outlines five principles from Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong about when strict liability can displace the presumption of mens rea, such as for regulatory offenses concerning public safety. Sherras v De Rutzen and James & Son v Smee further supported the presumption.

1. Define the concept of strict liability by reference to
the lack of requirement of mens rea

2. Common law presumption of mens rea

3. Sweet v Parsley: D rented a farmhouse out to students.
Students smoked cannabis in the property and D was charged
with “being concerned in the management of premises used
for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin”. She was found not
guilty because the Court presumed the offence required mens
rea

4. B v DPP: a 15 year old boy asked a 13 year old to “give him a
shiner”. The D believed she was over the age of 14. He was
charged with “inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an
act of gross negligence”. It was held that the seriousness of this
offence and the fact that you could face a prison sentence
made the presumption of mens rea stronger.

5. R v K: indecent assault didn't know age of girl

6. Statutory nature of strict liability offences: about half
of all statutory offences are one of strict liability

7. Significance of statutory interpretation in this context
– the statute wont contain mention of mens rea

8. Summary nature of most strict liability offences e. g
driving offences

9. 5 Principles referred to in Gammon v A-G for Hong
Kong

10. 1. There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required
before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence.

11. 2. The presumption in particularly strong where
the offences is “truly criminal” in character

12. 3. The presumption applies to statutory offences, and
can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary
implication the effect of the statute

13. 4. The only situation in which the presumption can be
displaced is where the statute is concerned with an
issue of social concern, and public safety is such as
issue.

14. 5. Even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of
mens rea stands unless it can also be shown that the creation of strict
liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by
encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited
act.

15. Sherras v De Rutzen: The Defendant was convicted of supplying
alcohol to a constable on duty, the C of A quashed the
conviction. The presumption that mens rea is an essential
ingredient in every other offence.

16. James & Son v Smee: permitted vehicle use with
defective brakes, (not guilty – not knowingly)