It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation
of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means
for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use.
Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s),
regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include
instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number
of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will
identify and explore these arguments.
It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict
liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices.
Barbara Wootton (Crime and Criminal Law: reflections of a Magistrates
and Social Scientist, 1981, p.256-258) defends strict liability on
this basis, suggesting that the objective of criminal law is to
prevent ‘socially damaging activities’. In support of this, it is
suggested by Elliot and Quinn (Criminal Law, 2000, p.32) that-
‘It would be absurd to turn a blind eye to those who cause harm due to
carelessness, negligence or even an accident’.
This approach appears to be stringent. One might be inclined to
suggest that accident is part of human nature, and in applying strict
liability to even the most honest mistakes, a satisfactory outcome may
not be achieved. One example of this is found in Smedleys v Breed
(1974). The defendants were convicted under the Food and Drugs act
1955, after a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Despite the fact
that individual inspection of each pea would not have prevented the
offence being committed, Lord Hailsham defended the imposition of
str...
... middle of paper ...
...seen as being morally unsatisfactory.
List of Cases
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC1, PC
29, 30, 31, 33, 34
Smedleys v Breed [1974] AC 839; [1979] 2 All ER 21; [1974] 2 WLR 525
36, 37
Bibliography
Elliott, Catherine & Quinn, Frances (2000) ‘Criminal Law- 3rd
edition’, Longman
Molan, Michael (2003) ‘Criminal Law- 4th edition’, Old Bailey Press
Roe, Diana (2002) ‘Criminal Law- 2nd edition’, Hodder and Stoughton
Smith, J.C & Hogan, B (1992) ‘Criminal Law’ London: Butterworths
Wootton, Barbara (1981) ‘Crime and the Criminal Law: reflections of a
Magistrates and Social Scientist’, Oxford: Clarendon
References
www.questia.com
(http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=criminal_law&OFFID=se1&KEY=criminal_law)
www.hg.org
http://www.hg.org/crime.html
"Supreme Court of New South Wales." R v Maglovski (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 16 (4 February 2013). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/16.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(r%20and%20maglovski%20) (accessed October 12, 2013).
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988).
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
Melvin, Justice. "In The Supreme Court Of British Columbia." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.3 (1993): 309. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
State V. Fisher. Wisconsin Supreme Court. 17 May 2006. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 04 May 2014. .
· “Plyler v. Doe” Online source. U.S. Supreme Court. Gov. 1982. 15 June. 2005 < http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Plyler/>
Stewart, I., and Joines V. (1987) TA Today, Nottingham and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Russell.
‘Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.’
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the employer than directly compensating the claimant.
People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in, and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized, it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose trust in the government, thus unraveling the fabric of society.... ...