A-Level Notes > York College A-Level Notes > Criminal Law Notes

Strict Liability Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 3 page long Strict Liability notes, which we sell as part of the Criminal Law Notes collection, a A package written at York College in 2015 that contains (approximately) 83 pages of notes across 41 different documents.

Learn more about our Criminal Law Notes

The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.

Strict Liability Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

Strict liability


A strict liability is an offence where there is no requirement to prove MR for at least a part of the offence o E.g. Prince and Hibbert Goes against basic principles of criminal law, not considering MR o Could create unfairness o Protects public on a wider scale - socially useful

Distinguish strict liability from absolute liability:

Both have no MR Both complete upon commission of AR For strict liability, AR must be voluntarily performed for conviction For absolute liability, AR is involuntarily performed E.g. Hill v Baxter, Larsonneur and Winzar Harsh/ draconian in absolute liability because it isn't their fault But absolute liability sends out a clear public policy message o Abused this in Winzar

Key features:

No element of fault or blame on the part of the defendant o E.g. Storkwain, Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah, Callow v Tillstone o Criminalises those who aren't criminal o Tarnishes someone's good reputation o Conviction could cause social stigma o Raises standards and increases vigilance o Acts as a deterrent o Public protection AR must be voluntarily performed for a conviction o E.g. Hill v Baxter No general defence of due diligence o No common law defence of due diligence or trying to prevent the offence o Doesn't matter how hard defendant tried to avoid committing the offence, once the actus reus is performed, they are guilty

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Notes.