6. Strict liability

Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird

This chapter focuses on identifying the circumstances in which an offence will be construed as one of strict liability—that is, where the Crown will not have to establish mens rea in relation to every element of the actus reus. The following controversies are examined: the presumption of mens rea, that is, unless Parliament has indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence; how to ascertain whether an offence is in fact one of strict liability; whether strict liability infringes Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the merits of strict liability offences.

Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird

This chapter focuses on identifying the circumstances in which an offence will be construed as one of strict liability—that is, where the Crown will not have to establish mens rea in relation to every element of the actus reus. The following controversies are examined: the presumption of mens rea, that is, unless Parliament has indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence; how to ascertain whether an offence is in fact one of strict liability; whether strict liability infringes Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the merits of strict liability offences.


2020 ◽  
pp. 139-183
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains/critiques the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


2021 ◽  
pp. 126-150
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards

Course-focused and contextual, Criminal Law provides a succinct overview of the key areas on the law curriculum balanced with thought-provoking contextual discussion. This chapter discusses the meaning of negligence, arguments for and against negligence as a basis for criminal liability, the meaning of strict liability, the origins of and justifications for strict liability, the presumption of mens rea in offences of strict liability, defences to strict liability, and strict liability and the European Convention on Human Rights. The feaeture ‘The law in context’ examines critically the use of strict liability as the basis for liability in the offence of paying for the sexual services of a person who has been subject to exploitation.


Criminal Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 123-146
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the meaning of negligence, arguments for and against negligence as a basis for criminal liability, the meaning of strict liability, the origins of strict liability, justifications for strict liability, identifying offences of strict liability, the presumption of mens rea in offences of strict liability, defences to strict liability, and strict liability and the European Convention on Human Rights. A Law in Context feature examines critically the use of strict liability as the basis for liability in the offence of paying for the sexual services of a person who has been subject to exploitation.


Author(s):  
Richard Holton

This paper develops an account of core criminal terms like ‘murder’ that parallels Williamson’s account of knowledge. It is argued that while murder requires that the murderer killed, and that they did so with a certain state of mind, murder cannot be regarded as the conjunction of these two elements (the action, the actus reus, and the associated mental element, the mens rea). Rather, murder should be seen as a primitive notion, which entails each of them. This explains some of the problems around criminal attempt. Attempted murder cannot be seen simply as involving the state of mind of murder minus success; rather, it has to be seen as a self-standing offence, that of attempting to commit the murder.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Nurul Sasmita

The aims of this thesis is (1) to investigate andexplain the positions of corporations in conducting banking criminalacts, and (2) also to identify and explain the criminal responsibility ofbank as the perpetrator in banking criminal acts. This research isnormative, conceptual approach and the approach of legislationregarding responsibility principles of the corporation for banking criminalacts.Corporations have chances in committing a crime, especially bankingcriminal acts just by making a corporation recognized as a subject ofexistence apart from human beings, so that in practice there is a criminal offense committed by the corporation. The corporation takespart in the occurrence of a crime. In practice, the determination of acriminal offenseconducted by the corporation is known through two things: first, the works of the committee: they should be constructed as theyuse the principles of the liability of corporation’s criminal actions. Principally, stakeholders and officials or employees of a corporationhave the responsibility for its owncorporate actions; second, errors in the corporation,as long as it is in the science of criminal law, the overview of criminals is still oftenassociated with physical actions performed by the manufacturers(fysieke dader) but this can be overcome by the study of  "functionalactors" (functioneledader). We can prove that the action of committeeor employees of the corporation in the society act traffic concerned,the acts of the corporationerrors in the forms (dolus or culpa) must be regarded ascorporate faults.Towards the corporations that make banking criminal acts we canhave their responsibility with the principles of strict liability. Onthe principle of strict liability, it is known that the responsibility ison them even if they do not have the required mens rea. The substanceof this principle is that the perpetrator has been punished if theperpetrator may have provable conduct prohibited by the criminalprovision (actus reus) withoutsee the inner attitude. In this conception, the corporation is consideredhaving responsibility forphysical acts performed by management. A corporation convicted in principles isintended to develop a sense of justice in the corporation who commitsbanking criminal acts as stated in Article 46 paragraph (2), sothat if a corporation committed criminal acts, we can also have theresponsibility of the corporation. Keywords:Banking Criminal Acts, Corporation, ResponsibilityMenurut peraturan perundang-udangan, korporasi sebagai subyek hukum dapat dikenakan pidana sebagaimana manusia melakuka tindak pidana. Pada praktiknya, penentuan tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh korporasi diketahui melalui dua hal, yaitu pertama tentang perbuatan pengurus yang harus dikonstruksikan sebagai perbuatan korporasimaka digunakanlah asas pertanggungjawaban pidana. Pada asas tersebut stakeholder maupun pengurus atau pegawai suatu korporasi, bertanggungjawab terhadap perbuatan korporasi itu sendiri. dan kedua tentang kesalahan pada korporasi, memang selama ini dalam ilmu hukum pidana gambaran tentang pelaku tindak pidana masih sering dikaitkan dengan perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pembuat (fysieke dader) namun hal ini dapat diatasi dengan ajaran “pelaku fungsional” (functionele dader). Kita dapat membuktikan bahwa perbuatan pengurus atau pegawai korporasi itu dalam lalu lintas bermasyarakat berlaku sebagai perbuatan korporasi yang bersangkutan maka kesalahan dalam bentuk (dolus atau culpa) mereka harus dianggap sebagai kesalahan korporasi. Terhadap korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana dengan menggunakan asas strict liability.Pada asas strict liability diketahui bahwa pembebanan tanggung jawab pidana kepada pelakunya sekalipun pelakunya tidak memiliki mens rea yang dipersyaratkan. Adapun substansi dari asas ini adalah pelaku sudah dapat dijatuhi pidana apabila pelaku telah dapat dibuktikan melakukan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh ketentuan pidana (actus reus) tanpa melihat sikap batinnya. Dalam konsepsi ini, korporasi dianggap bertanggung jawab atas perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pengurus (direksi dan komisaris). Dipidananya korporasi pada asas ini dimaksudkan dapat menimbulkan rasa keadilan pada korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan, sehingga apabila korporasi melakukan tindak pidana maka korporasi juga dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban.Kata kunci: Korporasi, Pertanggungjawaban, Tindak Pidana Perbankan


2021 ◽  
pp. 26-87
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird

The chapter begins the exploration of the elements of criminal offences. Two factors are crucial: the event, behaviour or state of affairs known as the external element or actus reus, and the state of mind known as the mental element or mens rea. This chapter discusses the principle of actus reus, proof and the elements of the offence, how to identify elements of actus reus and mens rea, coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, the effect of penalty provisions in determining the elements of the actus reus, actus reus and justification or excuse, the problematic case of Dadson with regard to actus reus, physical involuntariness, a ‘state of affairs’ as an actus reus, general liability for omissions, offences of mere omission, causation, the ‘but for’ principle, the connection between fault and result and negligible causes.


Criminal Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 210-229
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring

A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary to prove any mental state of the defendant. All that needs to be shown is that the defendant caused a particular result or carried out a particular act. This chapter discusses the offences that are strict liability; when a court will not presume mens rea; what mens rea will be presumed; the Human Rights Act 1998 and strict liability offences; common law defences and strict liability offences; possession offences; and the arguments for and against strict liability.


Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird

This chapter examines those types of manslaughter committed where the defendant lacks the mens rea for murder—called involuntary manslaughter. It considers whether the unlawful act manslaughter offence is too wide because there is minimal subjective fault required; whether the unlawful act manslaughter offence is too vague; whether a supplier of drugs can be liable for manslaughter if V dies from having taken them; and whether gross negligence manslaughter infringes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document