Strict Liability Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Strict Liability - Essay ExampleHowever both at common law and through Statute there are crimes of strict obligation and vicarious liability. Crimes of strict liability are those where intention (be it mens rea and/or negligence) imply not be proved in respect of one or more of the elements of the actus reus of an offence. The prosecution only has to prove that the accused committed the actus reus. Crimes of vicarious liability are those whereby the accused neither did the act nor had the intention but is held liable due to his relationship with the actual perpetrator. The development of strict and vicarious liability offences seems to be historical a reaction to the plethora of regulatory sanctions and poorly drafted legislation which did not mention malice, intent, knowledge or will.It might appear that state of affairs offences, such as crimes of strict liability are exceptions in English law. These are offences where either the legal or the evidential burden of proof falls on t he defence. However, Ashworth and Blake claimed in their research that up to 40% of trials in the Crown Court required the defendant to prove either a statutory defence or confute at least one element of the offence and that over 123 serious criminal offences had an element of strict liability. Most of these offences are regulatory, pertaining to food, drugs, health, alcohol, factories, pollution and other humankind health matters, and are mala prohibita rather than mal in se. They argued that this has made significant inroads on the presumption of innocence.The prosecution does not always have to cook that the actus reus was voluntary. So for ensample in Callow v Tillstone 1900 a butcher was held liable for exposing unsound meat for sale even though the carcass had been certified as condition for human consumption by a vet. A crime may have a mixture of strict liability and mens rea/negligence as to the elements of the actus reus. wherefore in R v Prince 1875 the accused was convicted of taking an unmarried young lady under the age of 16 out of her fathers possession as knowledge that the girl was under 16 was not required for conviction. It was sufficient that he knew she was in her fathers possession. At common law there is a presumption that mens rea is required to establish guilt. One remaining controversial area is that of the common law offence of Blasphemy where there is still some confusion. Lord Denning had said during a barbarism in 1949 that the blasphemy laws belonged in the past ... it was thought that a denial of Christianity was liable to shake the fabric of society, which was itself founded upon Christian religion. There is no such risk of exposure to society now and the offence of blasphemy is a dead letter.In 1979 morality crusader Mary Whitehouse successfully sued Gay newsworthiness and its editor for print a poem which described a purported affair between a male soldier and Jesus Christ and necrophilic acts with his corpse White house v Gay News Ltd 1979. In 1990 it was held that blasphemy laws only applied to