Meaning and Justification for the Strict Liability Concept - Report Example

Meaning and Justification for the Strict Liability Concept Meaning and Justification for the Strict Liability Concept Introduction The concept of strict liability in law occurs when an offense is considered solely depending on its physical attributes or aspects (actus reus) without considering the mental state (mens rea) of its doer. Conventional law dictates that a crime or offense must be evaluated on two aspects; the physical properties of the crime and the mental aspect of the defendant. The physical attributes of a crime include: an act, the state of affairs during its occurrence or an omission resulting in its occurrence. The mental state of the offender is assessed to ascertain fault or intent of the offender in relation to the occurrence of the crime and it varies according to the crime in terms of knowledge, awareness or reckless amongst others1. These two considerations embody the basis of conviction by ensuring justice and the proof of absolute guilt on the defendant. However, there are some offenses that do not require the consideration of the mental state of the offender and these are referred to as strict liability offenses. Meaning Of Strict Liability Concept Lawyers split strict liability offenses to include absolute and strict liability crimes. Absolute liability offenses disregard mens rea totally while strict liability ignores the concept to an element of the physical attributes of the crime2. This paper is based on strict liability offenses including all offenses that do not require mens rea in one way or the other. Strict liability offenses are mainly created though legislation although Parliamentary statutes do not present a vivid classification to cover all spheres of law. The decisions regarding which crimes should be treated as strict liability crimes rests with the courts eventually. Amid this vagueness, the courts base their decisions on the notion that for a crime to qualify as a strict liability offense, there must be a necessary , clear and compelling implication that Parliament intended that it should be treated as so3. Notwithstanding this principle, strict liability offenses have caused a lot of confusion and argument. Strict liability offenses can be categorized based on the nature of their occurrence as evidenced by past court cases. Regulatory cases Strict liability offenses are usually regulatory offenses. Regulatory statutes are created to protect the social concerns in a society. Strict liability is mainly assumed if the offense generates social concern. Social concerns refer to issues that impede the social wellbeing such as public safety4. The nature of the crime with regard to the existing regulations and statutory provisions are considered by courts in order to ascertain whether it qualifies as a strict liability case5. The aim of this proposition is to deter the public from engaging in potentially dangerous activities that can endanger the public. This provision seeks to encourage caution in social endeavors. This is reflected in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong6. In this case the offenders were convicted for breaching the Hong Kong building regulations which disallowed deviations from original building plans7. The defendants had deviated from the original plans in constructing a building and this caused the building to collapse. The Privy Council dismissed their appeal and upheld the conviction on the grounds that the case constituted a regulation violation8. Similarly, the defendant in R v Blake was convicted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 19499. The defendant was apprehended for broadcasting on an unlicensed radio station10. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction claiming that the offense was a strict liability crime because of its inherent effect on public safety11. Also in Harrow London Borough Council v Shah the court convicted the defendant for selling lottery tickets to an underage person12. The case was treated as a strict liability case and in addition to other arguments the decision was also based on the issue of regulation in business practices and protection of social concerns13. Legislative Act provisions The decision to handle a case as a strict liability offense is fundamentally dependent on the wording of the legislative act relevant to the crime. Courts consider direct references for strict liability as well as inferred implications of the same from statutory provisions14. Judges have expressed the opinion that mens rea is presumably necessary in all cases except in cases where a statute directs for the adoption of strict liability. This was underlined in Sweet v Parsley where the defendant was convicted for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act 196515. The defendant had rented houses to some tenants who were using cannabis in her apartments. After they were apprehended, she was also charged for her role as the house manager and found guilty under the pretext of strict liability. She appealed and claimed ignorance concerning the crime and the House of Lords quashed her conviction. Part of the ruling was based on the argument that the court could not treat the crime as a strict liability offense because other sections in the Act prescribed mens rea by using the word “knowingly” in reference to the mental state of the defendants16. Although the specific section she was convicted on was silent on means rea, the judges maintained that the words in the Act dictated mens rea17. Strict liability offenses lack a uniformly defined legislative guideline18. Courts must interpret the existing Acts to ascertain their implications on this issue while considering the context of the case. In Alphacell v Woodward the defendants were charged for pollution19. A clogging in some pipes, which carried waste from their industrial establishment, resulted in leakage leading to pollution in a nearby river. The defendants feigned ignorance of the mishap in addition to proving they had not been negligent. The House of Lords treated the case as a strict liability offense basing their decision on the word “cause” which was included in the statute20. Another example is in R v Deyemi where the defendants were found guilty of possessing a stun gun despite claiming that they had thought it was a torch21. The trial judge convicted them because the legal statute dictated that the case would be treated as a strict liability case based on the word “possession”22. Small Crimes and Small Penalties Strict liability offenses are usually small crimes that do not involve real and critical moral issues in the society. They differ from strict or real crime offenses such as rape or murder and they also bear relatively small maximum penalties23. They are as a result of minor incidents or errors that need to be controlled by Parliamentary legislation to maintain a disciplined society24. Strict liability offenses are characterized by small maximum penalties upon conviction. Courts shy away from treating cases that carry huge penalties as strict liability cases. Although this policy does not apply to all cases as witnessed in the Gammon case, it has been used both explicitly and inexplicitly in considering cases for strict liability by many courts25. For example, in Sweet v Parsley the House of Lords noted that the accusation against the defendant constituted a “true crime” and therefore could not be treated as a strict liability offense26. When deciding on this concept, courts also deliberate the impact of the conviction on the defendant. In Sweet v Parsley the judges also noted the effect of the case in stigmatizing the defendant thereby ruling out strict liability27. A similar argument applied in B v DPP where the House of Lords overturned a conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal based on the strict liability assumption28. The case involved a fifteen year old boy who had incited an underage girl to engage in an act of gross indecency29. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal dismissed mens rea when handling the case. Both courts did not consider mens rea to assess the boy’s claims that he thought the girl was over fourteen. In its decision, the House of Lords noted that the crime carried a heavy sentence and would also cause serious social stigma on the defendant and hence could not be treated as a strict liability offence30. Justification for the strict liability concept This concept enhances the effectiveness of law due to its functional properties. The concept is favored by many legal enforcers and its main justifications include the following. Crime deterrence The concept of strict liability offers a powerful deterrent for potential offenders especially for crimes that affect social concerns and regulation. The severity of its trial methodology discourages careless social behavior ensuring public safety31. Many regulatory statutes are monitored by government agencies such as the Health and Safety Inspectorate. These agencies usually witness negligence due to the general powerlessness associated with them. Mostly, people fear and respect the police and the judiciary because they are intimidated by the inherent authority they bear. Strict liability doctrines ensure that the society observes set regulations due to the fear of prosecution because this concept will most likely result in conviction. This reduces social crimes and promotes societal l welfare. Law enforcement effectiveness The concept of strict liability eliminates the time consuming procedure of proving mens rea. Cases that require mens rea consideration present prosecutors with daunting tasks of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the offender committed the crime intentionally by assessing their mental state32. Eliminating this hurdle in strict liability offenses ensures that the criminal system increases its effectiveness in dealing with crime in two ways. Crimes are solved speedily and decisively. Cases under strict liability conclude speedily because the prosecution does not require massive evidence to prove mens rea. This saves time for court administrators and also reduces case clogging. Also the chance for error is minimised during trial33. This is because the hectic task of proving mens rea usually results in confusion and errors for the prosecutor and this leads to acquittal eventually. Financial relief Strict liability reduces financial requirements in a trial by eliminating the need to prove mens rea. Strict liability requires only the proof concerning an offense’s physical aspects. The administrative costs associated with mens rea procedures such as investigative and prosecutorial activities are thereby foregone. Promotes care Strict liability is mainly based on regulatory statutes that aim to deter offenses by encouraging caution and care in public issues. The threat of conviction for strict liability offenders acts as an incentive to the society to embrace high standards of care34. This translates to a more responsible society resulting in a safer and healthier community. Promoting responsible business activities Businesses are mainly concerned in profit maximization. This means that most of the regulatory offenses committed by businesses are usually caused by profit increment strategies. These practices if not controlled and monitored can have a devastating effect on the society, for example environmental pollution. Strict liability ensures that businesses mainstream their activities and observe regulation statutes by making them liable and accountable for risks posed by their activities35. Another strong point of strict liability under this proposition is that it does not threaten liberty. Considering that most regulation offenders are businesses and that many penalties under strict liability are small fines, therefore the concept does not undermine individual liberty. Conclusion The concept of strict liability is haunted by several limitations such as lack of consistency and limited implementation. However, this concept has proven to be effective and sustaining in achieving various legislative concerns. This concept seems to offer a solution in spheres of law where mens rea has failed. It has also been observed to substitute and complement other criminal jurisprudences such as crimes of negligence36. The adoption of this concept into negligence considerations is evidenced by the conversion of the offense of gross negligence manslaughter into a strict liability offense37. This entrenches the fact that strict liability is used to ensure adherence in areas where mens rea lacks effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. The evolution of this concept in the last fifty years has been goaded by emergent social concerns. In the 1960s strict liability was used to curb the then wide spread drug problem .Later on when pollution became a global concern this concept was again implemented to curb the vice. Considering the above justifications, the importance of strict liability in law cannot be overemphasized. Bibliography Epstein R A, "A theory of strict liability" [1973] Journal of Legal Studies. Posner R A, "Strict liability: a comment" [1973] Journal of Legal Studies. Sandler G, "Strict Liability and the Need for Legislation" (1967) 53 Virginia Law Review. Shavell S, "Strict liability versus negligence" [1980] Journal of Legal Studies. Simons K W, "When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just?" [1997] Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Read More