If Parliament did its job properly there should never be any room for doubt whether or not an offence is one of strict liability. If mens rea is required this could

be expressly stated by using one of the long list of words (e.g. intentionally, knowingly, wilfully, permitting, etc.) which impose this requirement. Alternatively, if

the offence is intended to be one of strict liability, this could be expressly stated as was the case with ss. 1 and 2 of the Contempt of CourtAct 1981 which expressly

stated that strict liability applied to certain offences under the Act. Unfortunately, many statutory provisions remain silent and the courts are left to divination,

or, as they prefer to call it, statutory interpretation whereby they seek to discover the intention of Parliament. Certain factors or considerations may assist the

courts in this quest.”
(Allen, M Criminal Law, 2013, p110)

In the light of this statement, explain the meaning of and justification for the concept of strict liability.

Actus non facitreum nisi mens sit reais the main principle of the legal system, which means a person is only guilty of an act if they have both a guilty mind and a

guilty act, which means if the mens rea and actus reus can be proven. However in cases of strict liability the prosecution does not have to prove mens rea or

negligence in respect of one or more elements of the actus reus of an offence. The prosecution must only prove that the actus reus was committed by the accused, which

includes proving the accused’s actions, were indeed voluntary An example of a strict liability case would be that of R v Prince 1875 where the defendant took a girl

who he knew was in the possession of her father, which was against section 55 of the offences against the person act 1861. The act stated “Whosoever shall unlawfully

take or cause to be taken any unmarried Girl, being under the Age of Sixteen Years, out of the Possession and against the Will of her Father or Mother, or of any other

Person having the lawful Care or Charge of her, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be

imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.”  The defendant was in clear violation of the act, however he argued he had not

intentionally taken a girl under the age of sixteen as he believed the girl was older and therefore could not be seen liable. The defendant was however found guilty as

he had knowingly taken a girl who was in the custody of her Father.  This is a case of strict liability because the prosecution did not have to prove mens rea in one

element of the actus reus. They were able to prove mens rea in the actus reus of intentionally taking a girl in custody of her Father, therefore the court deemed that

there was no need to prove mens rea as to whether or not he knew the girl was underage, thus making it a strict liability case.

In some rare cases the rule of absolute liability is applied which is often confused with strict liability.

organization.

In cases of absolute liability there is no need to prove

any means rea at all, or even that the actus reus was done willingly by the accused . An example of this would be the case of R v Larsonneur (1933). In this case a

French woman was deported against her will from Ireland to England and upon arrival in England was charged with being an illegal alien, despite having been brought to

England against her will . This is a case of absolute liability rather than strict liability as the prosecution did not have to prove any mens rea or any voluntary

actus reus, being in England alone was enough for the conviction to be upheld.

Strict liability does go against the main principle of the Criminal liability, where one is only guilty if the person is guilty of act and of mind. Courts are

therefore only willing to accept cases to be of strict liability if it is stated in legislation. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 sets a rule for when a case is that of

strict liability; “In this Act ” the strict liability rule ” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with

the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so. ”

organization.