“Strict liability offences promote high standards of Behaviour, protect public and guard against dangerous activities. They are not only necessary but perfectly justifiable in a complex modern society.”
Discuss the Validity of this statement. 50Marks.
Strict liability refers to an offence for which no mens rea is needed. It is a method, which is deployed by the courts to determine whether a person is legally responsible for damages caused. Just doing the prohibited conduct is enough, without any intent or mental state. The crime doesn’t require any mens rea in connection to the actus reas. Strict liability is usually in relationship, to the health and safety of the public and maintaining social order and in order to achieve the benefits of public safety and high standards. However this method can be seen as very controversial as even though people may do their best to ensure public safety, can still be found liable.
Strict liability is the Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault. The use of strict liability in criminal can be seen as very controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not to blame or they have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (due diligence). In the case of Callow v Tillstone the defendant a butcher was convicted of “exposing unsound meat”. The butch had made sure to get it certified as safe by a vet before he sold it to a customer on appeal his conviction was upheld as it didn’t matter that “he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence”, even though he was not at fault in anyway he was still found liable. The decision in the case manages to achieve all of the objectives highlighted in the given title especially public protection and High standards (of food). The decision in this case, displays certainty in the courts, as they are convicting somebody of a crime, however, there is an injustice as the defendant...