Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Faraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA (Peter Gibson, Thorpe, Potter LJJ) 31 Mar 1999. 1. In Sherras, even though s 16(1) of the Licensing Act 1872 had express words requiring knowledge, it was held that mens rea was still required for s 16(2), which did not include the word knowingly. This is so even though the defendant was totally blameless in respect of the consequence, as was seen in Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411. 29 terms. He was charged with inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit actts of gross indecency with him, contrary to s1 (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. In these cases it also had to be proved that the doing of the actus reus was voluntary. If it was, then the butcher in, Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require. She was charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis'. The facts were that local police when on duty wore an armband on their uniform. However, the magistrate held that the offence was complete on proof that a sale had taken place and that the person served was drunk and convicted the defendant. Ben_Snaith. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. So where an offence is held to be one of strict liability, the following points apply: The defendant must be proved to have done the actus reus. For some offences, the statute creating the offence provides a defence of due diligence. If they do, then plainly, in order to prove a contravention of regulation 3, all that is required of the prosecution is proof of the sale of a national lottery ticket to a particular person and proof that at the time of the sale that person was under 16. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) The defendants were charged for selling a lottery ticket to a child aged 13 without asking for proof of age. All staff were told not to sell any lottery ticket to anyone under 16 and to check ID's. one of the staff sold a ticket to a 13- year-old boy. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. The court looked at other sections in the Act and decided that, as there were express provisions for mens rea in other sections, Parliament had intended s 58(2) to be one of strict liability. Re Baron Holding Investments Ltd; Ch D (Pumfrey J) 16 Apr 1999. The surprising fact is that about half of all statutory offences are strict liability. An on-duty police officer removed his armband before entering the defendants public house. So again, the court has to look at other sections of the Act to find out if it is an offence of . This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994. change the version number and provide a summary of the changes. If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Public nuisance and forms of criminal libel such as seditious libel probably do not require mens rea, but there are no modern cases. As a result, 190 passengers and crew were killed. The company were convicted of causing a river to be polluted despite having pumps and employed someone to ensure the river was not polluted.`, Empress Car Co. v National Rivers Authority (1998). Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. 68-1, January 2004. The draft Criminal Code of 1989 included provision for a general defence of due diligence, but the Code has never been enacted. Copyright 2013. ", In 1984 in the Privy Council case of Gammon Limited v. Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 10, having reviewed the speeches in Sweet v. Parsley and. It states: ROBBERY, BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES IN THE THEFT ACTS, Arbitration of International Business Disputes, Brownlies Principles of Public International Law, Health and Human Rights in a Changing World, he Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free_ Laws for the Internet Age, International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication, International Maritime Conventions (Volume 3), International Sales Law A Guide to the CISG, Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect, Research on Selected China's Legal Issues of E-Business, Serving the Rule of International Maritime Law, Stephen Cretney-Family Law in the Twentieth Century_ A History-Oxford University Press (2003), The Impact of Corruption on International Commercial Contracts, Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, Trade Policy between Law Diplomacy and Scholarship. . In that case a poem had been published in Gay News describing homosexual acts done to the body of Christ after his crucifixion and also describing his alleged homosexual practices during his lifetime. These were stated by Lord Scarman to be that. Ben_Snaith. The supermarket was charged with giving an indication that goods were on sale at a lower price than they were in fact. So too they were in, ofunderage gambling, it has been found necessary to impose strict liability. Storkwain. Mark Batchelor (Asst Director of Trading Standards, London Borough of Harrow) for the appellant; Milan Dulovic (Shah & Burke) for the respondents. Privy Council started with the assumption that Mens Rea is required before a person can be guilty of a criminal offence, but went on to give four other factors to be considered: If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! In both cases the sections in the Licensing Act 1872 were expressed in similar words. The defendant was told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped in a corridor. Southwark LBC v Mills. Facts: D was a DJ who was convicted of using a station fore wireless telegraphy, without a license contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The problem lies in deciding which offences are ones of strict liability. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The policeman had removed his armband. He was charged with inciting a child under, the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under s1 (1) Indecency with, The offence of inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross. In the case of Fisher v Bell [1961], a shopkeeper was prosecuted for displaying illegal flick knives for sale as contrary to Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. 11 terms. On appeal, it was held that it was not an offer for sale but was merely an Invitation to Treat. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302. (See section 1.2.3.). The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside the hospital. The first company to be charged under this act was Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings whereby a junior geologist was killed when pit collapsed while collecting soil samples. Oliver cannot sue Joses Apparel Ltd. under contract law. In the Divisional Court Goff LJ justified the conviction: [L]ooking at the purpose of this particular offence, it is designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by persons who are drunk in a public place. He was convicted of a strict liability offence. example of words and punctuation. The Privy Council started with the presumption that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence but went on to give four other factors to be considered. Determining whether Parliament has created an offence of strict liability involves rather more than applying a particular test, or working through a list of clearly and closely defined criteria. Looking for a flexible role? The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. This must be a voluntary act on his part. These are. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. This is because the advertisement was not an offer for sale but was only an Invitation to Treat. This case demonstrates how you can still be guilty of a strict liability offence even if you take precautions, in this case he was found guilty of selling food which was not fit for human consumption even though he had taken precautions by getting a vet to check the meat. Suppose a person was found drunk in a restaurant and was asked to leave. 61 terms. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302 . Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. No care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under s 16(2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. What does the columnist mean by a shareholder who can bail out at any moment? Prepare a tabular analysis which shows the effects of these transactions on the expanded accounting equation, similar to that shown in Illustration 1-8. This amounts to over 5, 000 offences. AQA AS La w 239 15 Introduction to criminal liability AQA AS La w 239 liability offences effectively is Harrow LBC v Shah (1999), in which a shopkeeper was convicted of the offence of selling a lottery ticket to a minor child, although he thought, reasonably, that the boy was at least 16 years old. All Rights Reserved by KnowledgeBase. 3) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is of truly criminal character. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. A more modern example demonstrating this is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) 2 All ER 635. In the c The salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over 16 years. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999. The clothing shop may also be held liable under both of this Act. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Facts: The company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river, contrary to s2 (1) (a) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, when pumps. The whole of s 13 reads: 13(1) If any requirement or restriction imposed by regulations made under section 12 is contravened in relation to the promotion of a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. Absolute liability means that no mens rea at all is required for the offence. 1 b). The vet assured him it was and so the butcher offered it for sale. He took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse. An example of this is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where s 1 sets out the strict liability rule. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. WHERE A lease had been forfeited by peaceful re-entry and the person who had the equitable interest which would entitle him to seek relief against forfeiture did not seek such relief, an equitable chargee did not generally, in the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, have the right to relief against forfeiture. D had supplied drugs on prescriptions which were later found to be forged. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. The Law Lords quoted with approval what Lord Reid had said in Sweet v Parsley (see section 4.4.8 for full details of B v DPP). The defendant was charged with s55 OAPA. They formed the opinion he was drunk so they put him in the police car, drove him to the police station and charged him with being found drunk in a highway contrary to s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. At the time of the sale the respondent, Dilip Shah, was not in the shop, but was working in the back room and the respondent, Bharti Shah, was not on the premises. She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police deported her and took her in police custody back to the United Kingdom, where she was put in a cell in Holyhead police station. The defendant was charged with serving an on-duty police officer with liquor. The defendant, who was an alien, had been ordered to leave the United Kingdom. It was necessary to decide if it had to be proved that they knew that their deviation was material or whether the offence was one of strict liability on this point. D rented a farmhouse and let it out to students. Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, mens rea was required for the removal aspect, and in this case, the necessary intention was not proved. Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983. However, a defendant can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence. E.g. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? The previous chapter explained the different types of mens rea. of strict liability. An example of this is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where s 1 sets out the strict liability rule. Both these offences carry the same maximum sentence (two years imprisonment, a fine or both) for conviction after trial on indictment. In this case even the use of an expert (a vet) was insufficient top avoid liability. That means that, whenever a section is silent as to mens rea, there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea it is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary.. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) The owner of a shop frequently reminded their staff to not sell lottery tickets to people under the age of 16, and put up signs in the shop. Only three common law offences have been held to be ones of strict liability. It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences. Robert Denman (Joseph Aaron & Co, Ilford) for the plaintiff; Timothy Fancourt (Collyer-Bristow) for the first defendant; Justin Althaus (Armstrong & Co) for Mr & Mrs Uddin. The police saw he was drunk and charged him with being drunk on the highway (s12 of the Licensing Act 1872). (Vice President of the Queen's Bench Division) and. 15th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law. Neither the defendant or his daughter made any enquiry as to whether the policeman was on duty. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. However, if a man in a restaurant made a thorough nuisance of himself, was asked to leave, objected and was ejected, in those circumstances he would not be in a public place of his own volition because he would have been put there It would be nonsense if one were to say that the man who responded to the plea to leave could be said to be found drunk in a public place or in a highway, whereas the man who had been compelled to leave could not. The defendant assumed that he was not on duty. The presumption in favour of mens rea being required before D can be convicted applies to statutory offences and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute. . He had no intention to do a wrongful act; he acted in the bona fide belief that the constable was off duty. Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and ors; Ch D (Blackburne J) 31 Mar 1999. Although the courts start with the presumption that mens rea is required, they look at a variety of points to decide whether the presumption should stand or if it can be displaced and the offence made one of strict liability. He said this: "The climate of both parliamentary and judicial opinion has been growing less favourable to the recognition of absolute offences over the last few decades; a trend to which section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 bear witness in the case of Parliament, and in the case of the Judiciary, is illustrated by the speeches of this House in Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132. In the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. . 77-3, June 2013, Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. In general, the Courts will give a ruling after considering all the actions of the employees in a corporation. CA held that the section imposed a vicarious liability would mean that the company has the immediate responsibility to provide evidence of precautionary measures had been taken to ensure safety even though workforce at the lower level did not take reasonable practicable measures. This idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated by two cases, Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 and Hibbert (1869) LR 1 CCR 184. As already stated, the actus reus must be proved and the defendants conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary. The defendant knew that she was in the possession of her father, but believed (on reasonable grounds) that she was 18. If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for! In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation. Gammon (Hong Kong) v AG of Hong Kong (1984). . If he was asked to leave, he would walk out of the door of the restaurant and would be in a public place or in a highway of his own volition. Give the cases and the area of law for no fault liability. At the time of the sale the respondent, Dilip Shah, was not in the shop, but was working in the back room and the respondent, Bharti Shah, was not on the premises. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! This may involve such matters as regulating the sale of food and alcohol and gaming tickets, the prevention of pollution and the safe use of vehicles.