The Concept Of Strict Liability

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

Strict liability offences also release the prosecution of the difficult task of proving mens rea as they do not have to spend time and effort proving it. Therefore this increases greater vigilance and administrative efficiency and deterring the effect of conviction and unsafe behaviour.

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 However, following R v G (2003), this kind of recklessness is no longer applicable.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.

The case study selected for week three centers on a liability and assumption of risk case study. In this case study, Brent Thomas and George Banks are facing liability charges after Ricky Watts sustained a serious injury during hockey practice (Essex, 2016). In this situation, Thomas is the school principal, and Banks is the hockey coach as well as the gym teacher (Essex, 2016). Ricky obtained injuries after improperly blocking the puck (Essex, 2016). This case study was selected because it highlights a situation that will likely be faced by all future school leaders. Sports are popular among students, and there is inherent risk in each sporting event. A school is open to liability if they do not ensure that proper protocols are met.

One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

Strict Liability offenses should be prosecuted as now even if they lack mens rea. Thus, crimes are not intentional or at fault of a civilian, such acts could cause harm to another. Therefor such crimes are prosecuted ordinarily. The means of not knowing could help a defendant in a case.

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments.

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.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.