Explain the Arguments for and Against Strict Liability Offences

First and foremost, the meaning of crime is any act or omission of duty resulting in harm to society that is punishable by the state. On the face of it there is no clear definition of what those acts or omisions actually are. When a crime has been committed the prosecution has the 'standard of proof' to prove 'beyond resonable doubt' to a jury that the accused had committed the 'actus rea' and/or 'mens rea'. The Actus Rea refers to the guilty act and the Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind or the planning of the crime. During strict liability offences, mens rea doesn't have to be proven only the actus rea. This is because the act is enough to charge someone as the judge sees fit.

Strict liability offences are offences which do not require proof of mens rea. This means that the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant voluntarily committed a forbidden act without considering if the defendant had the intention. Strict liability is contained in statutes or statutory instruments, and occasionally found in common law. Common law offences of strict liability include criminal libel and blasphemous libel. Also liability is rarely absolute. Most strict liability offences are regulatory and are involved in environmental protection laws, food, health and safety, the sale of alcohol and many more.

Actus Reus - "the criminal act" [Latin, Guilty act.] is an element of criminal responsibility, that a person acts wrongful or includes the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally need proofs of both actus reus and mens rea on the portion of a defendant in command to establish criminal obligation.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

The defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act but it is not necessary for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous. Although most cases involve some form of assault that requires intention or subjective recklessness, in DPP v NEWBURY (1976), the initial offence (which was not identified in the case) was surely of criminal damage, for which Caldwell or objective recklessness was formerly required. However, following R v G (2003), this kind of recklessness is no longer applicable. Gross Negligence manslaughter

Strict Liability – strict liability is where a mens rea is not needed to prove liability.

However, it could be argued that offenders may abuse this defence as a means of having their sentence reduced. A problem with the use of this defence by offenders is that their victim is not present to dispute their version of events. Unless there are witnesses to the events that take place it is difficult to refute the statements of the offender that they were provoked. The defence may also (in the absence of the victim) denigrate the character of the victim in their attempts to paint him/her as someone who is highly likely to cause a loss of control by an ordinary person. In criminal cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and in the absence of a witness to the crime it is difficult to prove that the offender was not provoked such that an ordinary person would lose control and in turn form the intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.

This topic raises the question of whether Willow and Xander are held criminally liable for Larry’s death by assessing the possible offences and defences that may apply. In order to decide the extent of their criminal liability, if any, a number of criteria need to be considered.

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

It is the opinion of this essay that this could be an effective method in combating the breaching of any Health and Safety rules; strict liability may allow enforcement agencies to ‘Strengthen their position’ (Roe, p.211.1) as potential offenders are aware that if any prosecution is brought against them, there is a good chance of conviction, due to the nature of strict liability. Elliot and Quinn (p.33.1) tell us that ‘strict liability makes enforcing offences easier.’ In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G (1985), the defendants were involved in building

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.

The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that Section 37 (1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty.