Strict Liability In Criminal Law

THE EFFICIENCY OF STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW

Most offences are now defined by statute. Usually the statute will state whether the offence requires a mental element and also define what the mental element is. Often the definition uses a word or phrase like “knowingly”, “recklessly”, “wilfully” and “dishonestly” in which it gives guidance to the court. But in some statute this kind of word or phrase is absence, hence the court will find that mens rea is not required. And this is basically in what so called strict liability and it is also can be seen an exception to the general principle of a criminal liability. This might be too general and not sufficient enough to understand what is strict liability is. So, there are fews definition

In this case, the defendant was accused of selling adulterated milk. It was sufficient for liability to prove that the milk was adulterated and that he was selling it ; his mistake that he had thought the milk was pure was irrelevant. Similarly in the much later case of Alphacell v. Woodward, liability was established under the section 2 (1) (a) of the Rivers ( Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 by the defendants causing polluted water to enter a river. The fact that they had not known that the pollution was taking place and that they had mistakenly thought that their filtering system was operating efficiently did not exonerate them. So based on the illustrated cases, we can see clearly what is strict liability really is.

Issues of strict liability arise as the use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law. However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection. So, how far the efficiency of the strict liability in criminal

The House of Lords said in Sweet v Parsley: ‘the fact that other sections of the Act expressly required mens rea, for example, because they contain the word “knowingly”, is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates a [strict liability] offence’. At present it is not always clear whether a particular form of words will be interpreted as creating an offence of strict liability. However, some words have been interpreted fairly consistently, including the