https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4 Essay plan en-us 2017-06-01 19:49:33 UTC 2017-06-01 20:26:57 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Pizza.png katiewoodhead123 https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174880478 -Strict liability = crimes which do not require proof of MR as to one of the elements of strict liability. The defendant will have no excuse, no matter how careful he has been as simply causing the prohibited consequence is sufficient.

-PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GB V STORKWAIN. 
D charged under the Medicines Act 1968 which states that no one shall supply certain medicines without a doctors prescription. D had supplied these drugs on prescriptions and was convicted even when the prescriptions were later found to be forged. Guilty.
--> Unduly harsh - convict someone morally blameless.
--> Ensure more caution.
--> Law cannot be exploited through claims of lack of knowledge.
--> Public policy decision - protection of the public over the individual.

IS - cannot easily get away with committing crimes which harm the public.]]> 2017-06-01 19:51:09 UTC https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174880478 katiewoodhead123 https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174880976 = The offence does not require any MR and there is no need to prove that the D's act was voluntary.

-WINZAR.
D removed from a hospital by police and then arrested for being drunk on a highway, even though the police officers had put him there. Guilty.
*Absolute liability - there is no need for the AR to be voluntary*
-->Had not acted voluntarily.
--> Element of fault in D's conduct - becoming voluntarily drunk.
--> Compare to LARSONNEUR.

IS - people will take more caution and be more careful, especially when getting voluntarily drunk.]]> 2017-06-01 19:56:59 UTC https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174880976 katiewoodhead123 https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174881359 -PRINCE.
D was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of possession of her father contrary to S55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He knew that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. Guilty.
*Strict Liability does not require mens rea for at least one aspect of the offence*
--> Doubt over whether this case is bad law - following B V DPP. When interpreting a statute there is always a presumption that MR is required for the commission of the offence.
--> In B v DPP the HL sad PRINCE is unsound and relic from an age deadand gone.
--> R V K - Spent force.

IS - in those times it was public protection but times have changed and this is no longer relevant in today's society.]]> 2017-06-01 20:01:35 UTC https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174881359 katiewoodhead123 https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174881778 -CALLOW v TILLSTONE.
A butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact that he had the meat certified by a vet before the sale. His conviction was upheld as the offence was one of SL and it matter not how diligent he had been to ensure the safety of the meat. Guilty.
*It is no defence to have taken steps to prevent the outcome - no general due diligence defence*
--> Very unfair - did all that was reasonable to take precautions against selling unfit produce.
--> The over riding aim of public safety - could not claim a defence.

IS]]> 2017-06-01 20:06:22 UTC https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174881778 katiewoodhead123 https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174882845 -HARROW LBC V SHAH AND SHAH.
D owned a newsagents where lottery tickets were sold. They had told their staff not to tell tickets to anyone under 16 and had told their staff that they should ask for proof of age. One of their staff sold lottery tickets to a 13 year old boy without asking for proof of age. Guilty of selling the lottery tickets to someone under the age of 16.
*No general due diligence defence, it must be stated in the Act*
--> This case as with CALLOW seems unfair on the defendants - they have done all in their power to prevent offences.
--> No firm rule/pattern as to when Parliament will include a due diligence defence.
--> But it is standard in Australia/ Canada.

IS - no one under 16 will be able to buy a lottery ticket - protects the company as they can't give winnings to someone under the age of 16.

]]> 2017-06-01 20:17:45 UTC https://padlet.com/katiewoodhead123/fv7r6iw1vzb4/wish/174882845