Fault (legal) - Strict Liability

Strict Liability

There is a role for strict liability in criminal law, in relation to both regulatory offences and offences of social danger. It can be argued that the interests of society as a whole can sometimes justify the imposition of liability without fault. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the degree of fault still plays an important part in determining the sentence following a conviction

Conditions for strict liability

• Only Actus reus needs to be established
• No blameworthiness is required on the part of the defendant
• It normally applies to regulatory offences (health and safety, minor traffic offences etc.)
• The advantages and disadvantages must be considered

Cases include

• Sweet v Parsley (1969) – where the defendant was found guilty of allowing her property to be used for cannabis smoking. Even though she had no knowledge of the offence, it was on her property so she was liable without fault. This conviction was later quashed by the House of Lords on the grounds that knowledge of the use of the premises was essential to the offence. Since she had no such knowledge, she did not commit the offence.
• Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and another (1999) - relating to the sale of a lottery ticket to a person who had not attained the age of 16 years.