STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Statutory Provisions

Statutory Provisions

Introduction

In this essay I will be discussing the imposition of strict liability in criminal law. I will do this by analysing the issues surrounding strict liability offences using case law, and discussing the pros and cons of having strict liability in law. (Simons 1997: 1075)

Strict Liability

Strict liability has been a part of the English legal system for many years. Strict liability offences are those that it has been decided that mens rea is not required and that if someone has fulfilled the actus reus of the crime, whether they intended to or not, then this will be enough to convict (although there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be found guilty of a criminal offence, this presumption can be displaced by strict liability offences Gammon. (Ormerod 2005:5)

Strict liability offences are nearly always offences that have been deemed strict liability by statute; there are very few offences of strict liability in common law. Statutory strict liability offences include offences relating to the preparation of food, possessing unlawful weapons and drugs, and driving offences such as drink driving and speeding. Examples of common law strict liability offences include public nuisance, blasphemous libel, outraging public decency and criminal defamatory libel. (Glazebrook 2001:26) There is generally no defence against strict liability offences, although there are some exceptions to this rule, but usually only if specific defences have been expressly mentioned in the relevant statute. The decision on whether or not the liability of an offence is strict is also often dependant on the size of the penalty i.e. the larger the penalty, the less likely strict liability will be imposed.

Offence One Of Strict Liability

With statutory strict liability the decision on whether or not the liability of the offence is strict depends on the wording of the act. (Carson 1970: 33) There are several key words and phrases that the courts look at in the statute to decide whether or not an offence is strict liability. These include: ëpermitting or allowingí, ëcauseí, ëpossessioní, ëknowinglyí and ëwilfully and maliciouslyí. The interpretation of these words will be what decides whether or not a mens rea of intention, recklessness or negligence is required.



Strict Liability necessary in criminal law

Strict liability in criminal law is necessary in many offences. This is especially true with offences such as driving offences e.g. speeding or drink driving, (Carpenter 2003: 313)as convictions would be very hard to obtain if the prosecution had to prove recklessness, negligence or intent in every case, and it would cost a lot of money to bring every single one of these cases to court.

Strict liability is also fair, if a little controversial, in other types of cases. Examples of previous cases where this is true include Smedleys v Breed where Smedleys peas, a large scale manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act for supplying a tin of peas containing a caterpillar (supplying food unfit for human ...