Strict liability (criminal)

Last updated

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus ("guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense (Preterintentionally [1] [2] /ultraintentional [3] /versari in re illicita). [4] [5] The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

Contents

Strict liability laws were created in Britain [6] in the 19th century to improve working and safety standards in factories. Needing to prove mens rea on the part of the factory owners was very difficult and resulted in very few prosecutions. The creation of strict liability offenses meant that convictions were increased. Common strict liability offenses today include the selling of alcohol to underage persons and statutory rape.

These laws are applied either in regulatory offenses enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the deterrent value of the offense. The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases. For example, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain, [7] a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless. The justification is that the misuse of drugs is a grave social evil and pharmacists should be encouraged to take even unreasonable care to verify prescriptions before supplying drugs. Similarly, where liability is imputed or attributed to another through vicarious liability or corporate liability, the effect of that imputation may be strict liability albeit that, in some cases, the accused will have a mens rea imputed and so, in theory, will be as culpable as the actual wrongdoer.

In various jurisdictions

Australia

The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) [8] defines strict liability and absolute liability in division 6.

Recent work health and safety legislation creates strict liability for WHS offenses. Also, certain other industrial offenses such as pollution tend to be enacted in terms of strict liability. [9] [10] Most air safety regulations in regard to operators of aircraft and unmanned rockets are enacted as strict liability offenses. [11]

Canada

Since 1978, Canadian criminal law has recognized a distinction between offenses of "strict" and "absolute" liability. In R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie the Supreme Court of Canada created a two-tiered system of liability for regulatory offenses. Under this system, the Crown would continue to be relieved from proving the mens rea of the offense. However, offenses of strict liability would grant the accused a defense of due diligence—which would continue to be denied in cases of absolute liability. Further, in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, the Court held that all regulatory offenses would be presumed to bear strict liability.

Following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, this distinction was upheld in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act . The Supreme Court further held that the inclusion of the possibility of imprisonment—no matter how remote—in an offense of absolute liability violated the accused's Section 7 right to liberty.

English law

Under the common law the rule is that crimes require proof of mens rea except in cases of public nuisance, criminal libel, blasphemous libel, outraging public decency, and criminal contempt of court. Where the liability arises under a statute, there has been considerable inconsistency, with different rules of construction in statutory interpretation producing varying assessments of the will of Parliament. But, in Sweet v Parsley , Lord Reid laid down the following guidelines for all cases where the offense is criminal as opposed to quasi-criminal:

  1. Wherever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, words importing mens rea must be read into the provision.
  2. It is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.
  3. The fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates an absolute offense. 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. [12]

Hence, the literal rule is qualified, and there is a rebuttable presumption that Parliament intended a mens rea to be a requirement in any section which creates an offense where the social stigma following conviction and the punishment available to be imposed show this to be a truly criminal offense. In Gammon (Hong Kong) v Attorney General of Hong Kong, Lord Scarman rebutted the presumption because public safety was threatened. [13] Hence, statutes involving pollution, dangerous drugs, and acting as a director while disqualified have been interpreted as imposing strict liability. In National Rivers Authority v Empress Car Co, [14] examples are given of cases in which strict liability has been imposed for "causing" events which were the immediate consequence of the deliberate acts of third parties but which the defendant had a duty to prevent or take reasonable care to prevent. If words like "knowingly" or "wilfully" appear in the section, the inference is that Parliament intended a mens rea requirement in that section. But, if words implying a mens rea are present in some sections but not others, this suggests that Parliament deliberately excluded a mens rea requirement in those sections which are silent.

In considering offenses created in the Children Act 1960, Lord Hutton in B (a minor) v DPP (2000), states the current position:

the test is not whether it is a reasonable implication that the statute rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime—the test is whether it is a necessary implication. [15]

As to the meaning of "necessary implication", Lord Nicholls said

Necessary implication connotes an implication that is compellingly clear. Such an implication can be found in the language used, the nature of the offense, the mischief sought to be prevented and any other circumstances which may assist in determining what intention is properly to be attributed to Parliament when creating the offense. Necessary implication may arise from not only the statutory provision under review but also from the rules governing that provision to be deduced from other provisions.

Thus, the court must examine the overall purpose of the statute. If the intention is to introduce quasi-criminal offenses, strict liability will be acceptable to give quick penalties to encourage future compliance, e.g. fixed penalty parking offenses. But, if the policy issues involved are sufficiently significant and the punishments more severe, the test must be whether reading in a mens rea requirement will defeat Parliament's intention in creating the particular offense, i.e. if defendants might escape liability too easily by pleading ignorance, this would not address the "mischief" that Parliament was attempting to remedy.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

In R v G (2005), a 15-year-old boy was convicted of statutory rape of a child under 13, a crime under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution accepted the boy's claim that he had believed the 12-year-old girl to be 15, but he was nevertheless sentenced to 12 months' detention. This was reduced on appeal to a conditional discharge, but, in a 3–2 decision, the House of Lords declined to reverse the conviction. [16]

Germany

In Germany, strict liability does not exist today since it is not consistent with the "nulla poena sine culpa" principle (no punishment without guilt). [17]

Strict liability in reality it is hidden in certain figures such as the Präterintentionalität. [18]

United States

As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example is a parking violation, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. Serious crimes like rape and murder usually require some showing of culpability or mens rea . Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.

A serious offense in which strict liability tends to show up is in drunk driving laws; the punishment tends to be given on a strict liability basis, with no mens rea requirement at all. This was important for the purposes of a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2004, Leocal v. Ashcroft , where a deportation order was overturned because the conviction that led to the deportation order was a strict liability law, while deportation was only allowed upon conviction if the crime was a "crime of violence" (where violence, or the potential for it, was inherent in the crime itself).

In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code generally restricts strict liability to minor offenses ("violations"). [19]

However, in United States v. Kantor, [20] which concerned underage pornographic actress Traci Lords, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals introduced a "good faith" defense against crimes in which the victim intentionally tricked the defendants into a factual mistake thinking that no crime was being committed. [21] [lower-alpha 1] A "good faith" defense requires showing that the defendant affirmatively had reason to believe that they were not committing a crime, not simply a lack of knowledge that they were.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit panel 7-2 in November 1994. The Majority did not disregard the underpinnings of the "good faith" exception but reversed the lower court's decision because the relevant sections of the law at issue could be interpreted in a way that was constitutional. [22]

Related Research Articles

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.

In criminal law, a mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

In criminal law, a regulatory offence or quasi-criminal offence is a class of crime in which the standard for proving culpability has been lowered so a mens rea element is not required. Such offences are used to deter potential offenders from dangerous behaviour rather than to impose punishment for moral wrongdoing.

Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few. Insofar as the term is still in use, it has a technical meaning that has changed substantially over time.

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit to the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, the plan itself is the crime, so there is no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

Corporate liability, also referred to as liability of legal persons, determines the extent to which a company as a legal person can be held liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs and, in some legal systems, for those of other associates and business partners.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

In most common law jurisdictions, an element of a crime is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary now depending on the crime.

Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the actus reus and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.

Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws.

<i>Criminal law of the United States</i>

The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution. Generally there are two systems of criminal law to which a person maybe subject; the most frequent is state criminal law, and the other is federal law.

Sweet v Parsley was an English criminal law case where the defendant landlady of a farmhouse was charged under a 1965 Act "of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis".

<i>DPP v Morgan</i>

DPP v Morgan[1975] UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords which decided that an honest belief by a man that a woman with whom he was engaged with sexual intercourse was consenting was a defence to rape, irrespective of whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds. This case was superseded by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which came into force on 1 May 2004.

References

  1. ↑ Judiciary, United States Congress Senate Committee on the (1971). Hearings, Reports and Prints of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  2. ↑ Tsikarishvili, Kakha (2018). "Parficularifies of Subjecfive Element of the Crime in French Criminal Law". Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press, 2018.
  3. ↑ Morris, Marshall (1995-01-01). Translation and the Law. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN   978-90-272-3183-3.
  4. ↑ Procedures, United States Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and (1971). Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, First Session [-Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session]. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  5. ↑ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2022-08-22). Fault in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Taylor & Francis. ISBN   978-1-000-63052-7.
  6. ↑ Whyte, D. (2014) Regimes of Permission and State-Corporate Crime. State Crime, 3; 2, pp. 237-246
  7. ↑ Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain [1986] UKHL 13, [1986] 2 All ER 635
  8. ↑ "Criminal Code Act 1995". 26 July 2011. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
  9. ↑ "Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Funds) Act 1993" . Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  10. ↑ "Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008". 27 December 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  11. ↑ "Civil Aviation Act 1988" . Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  12. ↑ Department, Law Lords. "House of Lords - B (By His Mother and Next Friend) v. Director of Public Prosecutions". publications.parliament.uk.
  13. ↑ Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1984] UKPC 17
  14. ↑ Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1998] UKHL 5
  15. ↑ B v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] UKHL 13, [2000] Crim LR 403, [2000] 2 WLR 452, [2000] 2 AC 428, [2000] 2 Cr App Rep 65, [2000] 2 Cr App R 65, [2000] 1 All ER 833(23 February 2000), House of Lords (UK)
  16. ↑ R v G [2008] UKHL 37 (18 June 2008), House of Lords (UK)
  17. ↑ "§ 18 StGB - Einzelnorm". www.gesetze-im-internet.de. Retrieved 2024-07-05.
  18. ↑ Grünewald, Anette; Lindemann, Michael; Saan, Ruth Rissing-van (2023-10-24). §§ 211-231 (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN   978-3-11-049014-5.
  19. ↑ Randall, Vernellia R. "MPC § 2.05. - When Culpability Requirements Are Inapplicable" . Retrieved 11 September 2015. Subsection (1) also speaks to offenses defined by statutes other than those in the criminal code, and provides that strict liability may be applied only if a legislative purpose to that effect plainly appears. In that event, however, Subsection (2)(a) makes the grade of the offense a violation irrespective of the penal provisions contained in the statute itself, unless the statute is passed after adoption of the Code and makes contrary provision.
  20. ↑ United States v. Kantor, 677 F. Supp. 1421 (C.D. Cal. 1987), aff'd sub nom, United States v. United States Dist. Court, 858 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988)
  21. ↑ Levenson, Laurie L. (March 1993). "Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes". Cornell Law Review. 78 (3): 401–469. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  22. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (1994-11-30). "Supreme Court Upholds Government's Ambiguously Written Child Pornography Law". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2021-05-27.

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.