Strict Liability

Criminal Law – Year I, Semester II

Department of Law, University of Jaffna
Introduction

Strict liability crimes are those in which the defendant is held liable for
a criminal offense he committed, even if mens rea is absent.

Though the defendant did not intend any harm by his actions and was
completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act, the doctrine
of strict liability holds him liable for the criminal offenses committed.
Strict Liability
A. In general:
This means that in strict liability cases, the defendant is liable even though he did
not intend to cause the harm and did not bring it about through his recklessness or
negligence.

B. Abnormally Dangerous Activities:

Hence, the actor engaging in abnormally dangerous activities is held strictly liable
for injuries sustained by third parties as a result of the actor’s activities. Among the
activities treated as abnormally dangerous are blasting, crop dusting, stunt flying,
and gasoline by truck.

C. Statutory Strict Liability:

Strict liability principles are also embodies in modern legislation.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES ELECTIONS ACT OF SL
Section 78
Every person who
a) Intentionally forges or fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any
ballot paper, or delivers to election officer knowing the same to be forged;
b) Knowingly forges or counterfeits or fraudulently defaces or fraudulently
destroys any ballot paper
c) willfully makes a false statement in any application to be treated as a
postal voter under this Ordinance, or in any declaration of identity sent to
him under the regulations.
shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction after summary trial
before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or
to imprisonment.
Consumer Protection Act No.37 of 1980
Find Mens rea?

What would be your answer, if the section 14 coined as follows:

No trader shall intentionally sell any article at a price above the maximum
retail or wholesale price …
Two different stands re imposition of Strict
Liability
1. Under common law – mens rea is a basic constituent part of a crime,
court should not find a man guilty of an offence unless he has a
guilty mind.

2. Oppose to common law stand – statutes impose liability without

having recourse to any doctrine of common law.
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 House of Lords

A school teacher let her house out to students. The students were smoking
cannabis in the house. She was unaware of this activity. She was charged with
an offence of being concerned with the management of premises which were
being used for the purposes of smoking cannabis contrary to s.5(6) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.
The statute did not state any requirement of mens rea of the offence.
Sweet v Parsley

Held:
The House of Lords looked at the common law before the statute was
made. The common law required knowledge of the activities in
order to impose liability. Thus the presumption that statutes do not
change the common law was applied in addition to the presumption
that mens rea is required where the offence is a true crime as oppose to a
regulatory offence.
Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839.
Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the
defendants had contained caterpillars. The defendant company was
convicted of "selling food not of the substance demanded by the
purchaser" contrary to s2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 (now
replaced).
Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839
• They contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an
unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation
and that they therefore had a defence under the 1955 Act. They also
claimed that they had taken all reasonable care.

HL held that; It was not sufficient for the defendant to show that he had
taken all reasonable care to avoid the presence of the extraneous matter.
HL imposed Strict Liability even in the absence of ‘Mens rea’
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
The appellant Paper factory owner was convicted of causing polluted
matter to enter a river under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act
1951.
The offence related to an underground pipe which had become
disconnected due to a blockage. The appellant was unaware of the
pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent.
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
Held:

As a matter of public policy the offence was one of strict liability and
therefore the accused was convicted.
The legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this
would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian
factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but
to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it.
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong
Kong [1985] AC 1
The appellant was a builder who had deviated from plans in the
construction of a building. It was an offence to deviate from the plans in
a substantial way. The appellant accepted he had deviated from the plans
but he believed that the deviation was only minor rather than
substantial.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and therefore his belief was
irrelevant and his conviction upheld.
Gammon
In determining whether an offence is one of strict liability there is a
presumption that mens rea is required

Strict liability may be imposed if:

1. The crime is regulatory; or

2. The crime is one of social concern; or
3. The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or
4. The offence are very serious.
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) QBD
The owners of a shop were aware of the rules about the sale of lottery
tickets. They put up notices in their shop, and told staff not to sell any
tickets to anyone under the age of 16.
Nevertheless one of their staff sold a ticket to an under-age boy, even
though he seemed older. They were guilty: liability was strict.
No mens rea was needed for the age of the boy.
Sri Lanka
In Gunasekera vs Dias Bandaranayake
Soertsz J. declared that
under English law, a criminal charge without mens rea is inoperative,
however enactments can impose strict liability even without mens rea
However our law (Sri Lankan law) knows no such distinction.
Strict liability vs Defenses
Perera vs Munaweera
The stand was authoritatively laid down for the law of Sri lanka that
‘where the definition of an offence contains words of absolute and
unqualified prohibition, the prosecution need only establish beyond
reasonable doubt the commission of the prohibited act.
In such a case is entitled to plead any of general exceptions; the accused
would therefore be entitled to bring plea of mistake of fact.
Munasinghe vs Peiries
In this case the accused, a salesman, sold an article for Rs 5.98.
When its controlled price was Rs.5.89.
His explanation was that, when he wrote out the bill, he mistakenly
transposed the figure 9 for the figure 8 – therefore 5.89 – became Rs
5.98.
Prosecution – argued for Strict liability
Defense – Section 73 of Penal Code
It was held that the transposition of figure was an accident within the
meaning of section 73 of Penal Code.
Thasthakeer vs Jayasekara
Salesman in a shop, was charged with having contravened the
provisions of s.4 (1) of Foods and Drugs Act.

He sold a bottle of orange Jam, which consists 8.01% of orange and

34% of ash pumpkin.
Thasthakeer vs Jayasekara
Prosecutor argued for – Strict Liability
Defense for – Section 72 of PC
It was held that the shop keeper was not liable, as a mere salesman in a
shop, he could not have known the exact composition of the bottle.
The court entertained no doubt that a defense under s.72 of PC was
available in these circumstances.