Development of Strict Liability in English Law Law

cxjCXQ107

The Rule in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd
Developing Social Policy Using Strict Liability
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1984] clarified the amplitude of this speculation. In Gammon, the court ruled that the presumption was especially muscular when an offence was truly criminal and that it can only be displaced in statutes regarding social concerns, such as public safety.
Strict liability too allows the evolution of social policy and the discouragement of definite undesired practices. In An Introduction to Law, Professor Phil Harris argues that strict liability has become prevalent in regulatory offences because when tall standards are to be encouraged, it is extra essential that ... offences should be strictly penalized than that conviction should be contingent upon testimony of moral crime (Harris, 2007 p. 321).
There are several arguments for the development of strict liability as a portion of the criminal law. With regard to corporate crime,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the need to prove mens rea before a conviction can be made has resulted in a extensive value of criminal case law where conviction has been impossible simply for the mind of a company could not be decided.
In The Changing Law (1953), the infamous Lord Denning said namely in mandate that one deed ought be punishable it must be morally blameworthy and this has been true for numerous offenses. The common unity has long been that criminal liability tin only be levied above those who perpetrate the actus reus of a crime with the relevant mens rea. However,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], this is not all the circumstance.
Despite its advantages in removing needless criminal defences and promoting social policy, the tribunals have been loath to do away with the absence for mens rea. In the case of Sweet v. Parsley [1970], Lord Reid ruled that while an Act of Parliament fails to mention mens rea, the courts will presume that the requirement for a mental element to the crime was intended.
The Oxford Dictionary of Law (Fifth Edition) defines strict liability for a fashion of criminal liability imposed without the need to testify mens rea for by least 1 factor of the crime. While there may be defences obtainable,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], such as automatism, strict liability law is essentially a crime that can be committed without the wisdom, recklessness, malice or intention of the convict.
Why is Strict Liability Law Necessary?
Read on
What Does Actus Reus Mean?
What is Mens Rea?
Accomplices and the Accessories and Abettors Act
Strict liability law has amplified as a means of imposing criminal liability on companies where it would otherwise be impossible to do so, and to subserve greater vigilance in specific zones of social policy, such as driving regulations. It removes certain criminal defences that
Furthermore, the displacement must be stated apparently, or by a essential implication of the effect of the statute in answer. Gammon then works on to require that it be shown that creating a strict liability offence would be efficient in promoting the object of the law at encouraging vigilance, otherwise the need for mens rea ambition be assumed regardless.
In R v. P & O Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1990), case in point, Turner J ordered the acquittal of P & O Ferries afterward mens rea could not be attributed to the senior advisers of the corporation; thereby assuring the company itself could no have the mens rea to have committed the crime of manslaughter. Strict liability law essentially removes this back gate criminal defence.