Strict Liability Within Society

In the case of sweet v Parsley (1970) a woman rented out her house to some tenants who were growing cannabis in it without her acknowledgement. Since it was a true crime the actus and mens reus needed to be proved.

Statutory interpretation is also taken into account and this was implied in the case of Alphacell v Woodward (1972). This case involved two men letting pollution escape into a river although it was not intended. It was a offence of strict liability because it dealt with an issue of public concern. When the courts reviewed the case they took the literal rule and applied it to the word ‘cause’ which led to the outcome of the case. However, if the case was interpreted with a different rule it could have caused a different approach i.e. If the mischief rule was applied it could be suggested that the defendants did not ‘cause’ the pollution on purpose.

The advantages of strict liability is it promotes protection of care because by promoting high standards of care, strict liability, it is argued, protect the public from dangerous practices. Deterrent value strict liability is said to provide a strong deterrent, which is considered especially important given the way in which regulatory offences tend to be dealt with. Furthermore strict liability is much easier to enforce. Also, there is a difficulty in proving mens rea in many strict liability cases it would be very difficult to prove meaning that many people would escape conviction. There is no threat to liberty because in many strict liability cases, the defendant is a business and the penalty is a fine, so individual liberty is not under threat. The disadvantages are that it is not in the interests of justice that someone who has taken reasonable care, and could not possibly have avoided committing an offence, should be punished by criminal law. This goes against the principle that the criminal law punishes fault. What’s more, strict liability also delegates a good deal of power to the discretion of the enforcement agency. Lastly, many people claim it is ineffective and that it is debatable whether strict liability actually works. In my opinion I believe strict liability is good because it allows people to profit from risk. This means that where an offence is concerned with business, those who commit it may well be saving themselves money, and therefore making extra profit by doing so.