Strict Liability in Criminal Law
- teachlawhub
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
In criminal law, the general rule is simple: to be guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). Most crimes require both elements.
However, there are some offences that are exceptions to this rule. These are called strict liability offences, here the mens rea is not required for at least part of the actus reus. This means that in strict liability offences, the defendant will be liable for the offence even though they do not have the mens rea to commit the crime.
Strict liability offences are particularly common in offences relating to public safety, health, and regulatory matters (e.g. food safety, pollution, alcohol licensing).
What is Strict Liability in Criminal Law?
Strict liability offences are crimes where the prosecution only needs to prove the actus reus. Mens rea is not required for at least part of the offence.
This means a defendant can be guilty even if they acted carefully, honestly, or reasonably. The focus is on the act itself, not the defendant’s intention or knowledge.
Case Example: Pharmaceutical Society v Storkwain (1986)
A pharmacist supplied drugs using prescriptions that appeared valid but were actually forged. Even though the pharmacist acted honestly, he was found guilty.
Here the use of strict liability protects the public, it ensures that offences like the supply of drugs cannot occur without accountability, even if the offender is not morally at fault or made a mistake.
No Fault Needed
Strict liability offences do not require proof of fault. The defendant can be guilty even if they have taken all reasonable precautions.
Case Example: Callow v Tillstone (1900)
A butcher asked a vet to check meat before selling it. The vet mistakenly said the meat was safe, but it was unfit for consumption. The butcher was still guilty of selling unsound meat.
This case demonstrates that the defendant may still be liable under a strict liability offence even thought they are not at fault and may have taken all reasonable precautions.
The Gammon Test:
When it is unclear whether mens rea is required, the courts use the Gammon test (Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General, 1985) to determine whether an offence is strict liability.
In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) the Privy Council set out five principles for presuming mens rea:
1. Presumption of Mens Rea
The courts will generally start with the assumption that mens rea is required for criminal liability/criminal offences. This principle protects defendants from being convicted of serious crimes without proof of fault.
Case Example: Sweet v Parsley (1969)
The defendant (a landlady) rented out a farmhouse to students who were growing cannabis on the premises. The court held that she was not guilty, as there was no evidence she knew of the illegal activity.
This case illustrates the strong presumption that mens rea is required unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise.
2. Truly criminal vs quasi-criminal (regulatory)
The presumption of mens rea is stronger for serious criminal offences, typically those carrying custodial sentences. By contrast, quasi-criminal or regulatory offences often aimed at public protection are more likely to be strict liability offences.
Regulatory offences:
Callow v Tillstone (1900) - Selling meat that was unfit for human consumption.
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) - Selling alcohol to a drunk person.
Shah and Shah (1999) - Selling lottery tickets to underage customers.
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972) - Polluting a river.
3. Wording of the Statute
Legislation can either reinforce or displace the presumption of mens rea. Clear statutory wording specifying mental fault e.g. “knowingly”, “intentionally”, “recklessly” confirms that mens rea is required and the offence is not one of strict liability. Ambiguous or general wording suggesting only actus reus is needed e.g. “sells”, “offers”, “permits” may allow courts to impose strict liability.
4. Social Concern / Public Protection
Offences that affect public health, safety, morality, or the environment are more likely to be treated as strict liability to encourage compliance and protect the public.
Examples:
Sale of alcohol: Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)
Sale of food: Callow v Tillstone (1900)
Pollution offences: Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972)
Underage gambling: Shah and Shah (1999)
Unlicensed radio broadcasts: Blake v DPP (1993)
Road Safety: Road Traffic Act 1988
5. Promoting Compliance / Deterrence
Strict liability is appropriate where it encourages adherence to the law and deters breaches. If imposing strict liability would not serve this purpose, it should not be applied.
Case Example: Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963)
This case involved a defendant who remained in Singapore despite a prohibition order he was unaware of. The Privy Council quashed his conviction. The case established that strict liability should not be imposed where it would not promote compliance with the law.
Why Does Strict Liability Exist?
Strict liability may seem harsh, but it plays an important role in law:
Protects the public, especially in areas like health, safety, and the environment.
Encourages compliance, businesses and individuals are extra careful because they know “I didn’t mean to” isn’t a defence.
But there is always the argument that it can be unfair, punishing people who have no moral blame.
Overall: Strict liability offences do not require the proof of mens rea in order to find the offender guilty. They may seem harsh, but they exist to protect society by deterring risky behaviour and promoting compliance.
Click below to download the FREE TeachLaw student activity pack.
Comments