The Law Lords quoted with approval what Lord Reid had said in Sweet v Parsley (see section 4.4.8 for full details of B v DPP). The company had caused the river water to be polluted and hence, conviction was upheld. In summary what did Roscoe Pound say when explaining the need for statutory offences of strict liability? 1 b). There were no words in the section requiring the defendant to have knowledge that a constable was off duty. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. He had no intention to do a wrongful act; he acted in the bona fide belief that the constable was off duty. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Determining whether Parliament has created an offence of strict liability involves rather more than applying a particular test, or working through a list of clearly and closely defined criteria. Re Baron Holding Investments Ltd; Ch D (Pumfrey J) 16 Apr 1999. Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The police saw he was drunk and charged him with being drunk on the highway (s12 of the Licensing Act 1872). Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. 2) The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly the effect of the words of the statute. Statutory Interpretation- Aids - Statutory Interpretation - Studocu . On the other hand, in R v Kite and OLL Ltd [1994], where a leisure company and its managing director were found guilty of corporate manslaughter in the Lyme Bay kayaking tragedy after several students were killed by sending an untrained staff to rough seas in canoe. The Divisional Court upheld his conviction. When giving judgment in the case Day J stated: This police constable comes into the appellants house without his armlet, and with every appearance of being off duty. He understood that if he was in any doubt about the age of the purchaser he should ask for proof of identity and that if still in doubt he should then refer the matter to the respondents or refuse to sell. The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. -like an appendix. One of the staff sold one to a 13 year old without asking for ID. R v St Edmundsbury Borough Council, ex p Watson; QBD, Crown Office List (Hooper J) 13 Apr 1999. To be an absolute liability offence, the following conditions must apply: The offence does not require any mens rea. Two cases which illustrate the difference in liability are Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207 and Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918. I say 'must have been' because 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. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required, the offence will be one of strict liability. In Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999], it is a strict liability offence to sell National Lottery tickets to a person under the age of 16 as it is an issue of social concern stated by the Divisional Court.
Vero Beach Shark Attacks 2021,
Drop A Pebble In The Water Poem,
Articles H
