Strict Liability 2023

COURSE UNIT: CRIMINAL LAW
PURPOSE: DISCUSSION
Question.
Strict Liability has no legal basis, and serves no legal purpose in Criminal
Law. Discuss.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, Criminal Law is defined a body
of rules of actions or conduct prescribed by controlling Authority and having
binding legal force.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition, a Crime is an act law makes
punishable.
The general rule of Criminal Liability is for the defendant to be criminally liable,
he or she must have committed actus reus (guilt act) with mens rea (guilt state of
mind). However, there are circumstances when the defendant or the accused may
be held liable without the guilt state of mind.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, actus reus can be defined as a wrongful deed
that comprises the physical components of a crime as well as mens rea, refers to
guilt state of mind that prosecution to secure a conviction, must prove that the
defendant had.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition, Strict Liability refers to an
offence for which the action alone is enough to warrant a conviction with no need
to prove a mental state.
In reference to the question, strict liability has both a legal basis and a legal
purpose basing on its principles and applications as the court recognizes the
existence of crimes of strict liability in specific circumstances as discussed below;
The Presumption Of Mens Rea. Courts usually begin with the presumption in
favour of mens rea, commonly the well-known statement by Wright J in Sherras
v De Rutzen [1895-9] All ER Rep 1167: There is a presumption that mens rea, or
evil intention, or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential
ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by
the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it
deals, and both must be considered.
Secondly, the Wording Of The Statute. In determining whether the presumption
in favour of mens rea is to be displaced, the courts are required to have reference to
the whole statute in which the offence appears. Penal Code Act Cap 120, section
8(3) provides that, Unless otherwise expressly declared, the motive by which a
person is induced to do or omit to do an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial
so far as regards criminal responsibility.
For instance, in Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207. The defendant was
convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of
the Licensing Act 1872. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been
unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The
Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it
was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act
expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. It was held that
it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of
knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was
drunk.
Furthermore, The Gravity Of The Punishment to be rendered is put into
consideration while applying crimes of strict liability in courts. Where an offence
carries a penalty of imprisonment, it is most likely to be considered a ‘truly
criminal offence’ and so less likely to interpreted as an offence of strict liability.
This was an important factor in B v Dpp (2000) more so in Sweet v Parsley [1969]
1 All ER 347, it was held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended
the house to be used for drug taking owing to the punishment for the crime.
Yet more, in Issues Of Social Concern, checks for the application of offences of
strict liability are assessed. For example, in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd V
A.G(1984), the privy council held that the only situations in which the presumption
of mens rea can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with issues of social
concern.
More still, the focus on promoting the enforcement of the law is a key
circumstance in the application of offences of strict liability. In Gammon (Hong
Kong) Ltd V A.G(1984),1 the final point in considering whether strict liability
should be imposed, even where the statute is concerned with issues of social
concern, was;
whether it would be effective to promote the objectives of the statute by
encouraging the vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.
On the issue of the legal purpose in this matter therefore, below are legal purposes
of strict liability.
 Preservation of Public Order and Safety. Strict liability can be employed to

ensure public safety and order by applying legal methods. For example,
Article 34 (4) of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, as
amended; “where children are entitled to be protected from social or
economic exploitation and shall not be employed in or required to perform
work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with their education or to
1
be harmful to their health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social
development. This is justified in the case B (minor) v DPP (2000). The facts
in this case are; A fifteen-year-old boy who had sat next to a thirteen-year-
old girl asked her oral sex. The boy was charged with inciting a child under
the age of fourteen to commit a child of indecency. Both the trial judge and
the court of appeal ruled that this was a strict liability offence and that there
was therefore no defense available that the boy believed the girl to be over
fourteen.
 Strict liability can serve to protect vulnerable parties by imposing

responsibility on individuals engaged in activities that pose a risk to others,
irrespective of their mental state as it is clearly exemplified in the case of
Sweet v Parsluy (1970) where Ms. Sweet a teacher took a sublease of the
farm house outside Oxford. She rented to House to tenants and rarely spent
time there. Unknown to her, the tenants were smoking Cannabis on the
premises. When they caught, she was found guilty of being concerned in the
management of premises which were used for the purpose of smoking
cannabis, contrary to Dangerous Drugs’ Act (now replaced by the misuse of
Drugs’Act 1971. Lord Reid acknowledged that strict liability was
appropriate for such offence in particular for public interest.
 Strict liability facilitates the effective enforcement of regulatory laws,

especially in situations where proving mens rea might be impractical or
hinder law enforcement efforts.
 Strict liability serves as a deterrent by making individuals accountable for

their actions, thereby encouraging compliance with laws and regulations.
 Strict liability allows for a balance between individual rights and societal
concerns, particularly in cases where the statute is focused on issues of
social concern.
In conclusion, the assertion that strict liability has no legal basis and serves no
legal purpose in criminal law is not tenable when considering the principles and
applications outlined in the discussion. The legal foundation of strict liability is
evident in the recognition of crimes with strict liability elements in specific
circumstances. The discussion highlighted several key factors supporting the legal
basis and purpose of strict liability, including the presumption of mens rea, the
wording of statutes, consideration of the gravity of punishment, and the focus on
issues of social concern.
Furthermore, the examination of legal purposes of strict liability reveals its

significance in preserving public order and safety, protecting vulnerable parties,
efficiently enforcing regulatory laws, serving as a deterrent for compliance, and
striking a balance between individual rights and societal concerns. These legal
purposes align with constitutional principles, such as those found in the 1995
Uganda Constitution, which safeguards the rights of individuals while allowing for
the necessary imposition of strict liability in certain circumstances.
The case law examples, such as Cundy v Le Cocq (1884), B v DPP (2000), and
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A.G (1984), further illustrate the practical application
of strict liability and its justifiability in specific contexts. These cases highlight
instances where strict liability is employed to address issues of public safety,
protection of vulnerable individuals, and promotion of social objectives.
In essence, strict liability plays a crucial role in the legal landscape by providing a
practical means of addressing certain offenses where the imposition of mens rea
may be impractical or inconsistent with the objectives of the law. Therefore, it can
be argued that strict liability does have a legal basis and serves distinct legal
purposes within the framework of criminal law, contributing to the overall efficacy
and fairness of the legal system.

Strict Liability 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strict Liability 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strict Liability 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COURSE UNIT: CRIMINAL LAW

 Preservation of Public Order and Safety. Strict liability can be employed to

 Strict liability can serve to protect vulnerable parties by imposing

 Strict liability facilitates the effective enforcement of regulatory laws,

 Strict liability serves as a deterrent by making individuals accountable for

Furthermore, the examination of legal purposes of strict liability reveals its

You might also like