CRIMINAL LAW

Strict Liability in Socio-Economic Crimes

SUBMITTED BY-
GARVIT CHAUDHARY

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DELHI (INDIA)
2018
Introduction
A few offenses don't require mens rea or don't require mens rea to connect to a component of the
actus reus. These are by and large known as Strict liability offenses which is the term utilized as
a part of this section, however a few legal counselors allude to those offenses requiring no mens
rea at all as forcing total risk and those requiring no mens rea as to a component of the actus reus
as forcing Strict liability. A large portion of these offenses have been made by statute.

The Socio-Economic Offenses have been incepted since times immemorial, yet remained
dormant until the beginning of World War II, However, as demonstrated by Prof. Albert Morris
the fundamental paper titled "Criminal Capitalists" with respect to the issue was shown by Edwin
C. Hillbefore the International Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime at London in
1872. Prof, A. Morris himself had drawn the thought of criminologists towards this fresher kind
of culpability in 1934. Regardless, the statue of this fresher kind of fault was all of a sudden
framed by a remarkable criminologist Prof. Edwin H. Sutherland in 1939. Sutherland portrayed
these fresher infringements as White Collar Crimes.

Nearly everyone works in light of someone else keeping the true objective to obtain a living.
Men are enthused about getting a most extraordinary return for a base utilization of effort and
essentialness – there is a run of the mill financial drive to "get rich quick." In the wake of
industrialisation, brisk urbanization and changes in establishments, gauges and characteristics,
material progress has ended up being one of the crucial or the rule goals of life.
 Which crimes are crimes of strict liability?

Kinds of Socio-monetary violations

There is a summary organized money related offenses by the Santhanam Committee Report,
(That Committee was assigned by Central Government, in 1962), however the summary isn't
extensive. The characterizations of money related offenses noted by that leading body of trustees
are according to the accompanying:

...Such offenses may completely be masterminded into:

(1) Offenses discovered to deflect or impede the money related change of the country and
endanger its monetary prosperity;

(2) Evasion and avoiding of costs really constrained;

(3) Misuse of their circumstance by open workers in making of assentions and exchange of open
property, issue of licenses and permits and relative diverse issues;

(4) Delivery by individuals and mechanical and business attempts of stock not according to
agreed points of interest in fulfillment of assertions went into with open specialists;

(5) Profiteering, dim advancing and putting away;

(6) Adulteration of sustenance stuff and prescriptions;

(7) Theft and misappropriation of open property and holds; and

(8) Trafficking in licenses and permits et cetera.

Sadly, statutes are not generally so obliging as to express 'this is a Strict liability offense'. Every
so often the wording of an Act makes this reasonable, however generally the courts are left to
choose for themselves. The standards on which this choice is made were considered in Gammon
(Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985). The litigants were associated with building works
in Hong Kong. Some portion of a building they were developing tumbled down, and it was
discovered that the crumple had happened in light of the fact that the developers had neglected to
take after the first designs precisely. The Hong Kong building controls denied going amiss in any
considerable route from such plans, and the litigants were accused of breaking the controls, an
offense culpable with a fine of up to $250,000 or three years' detainment. On claim they
contended that they were not at risk since they had not realized that the progressions they made
were considerable ones. Notwithstanding, the Privy Council held that the important controls
made offenses of Strict liability, what's more, the feelings were maintained. Clarifying the
standards on which they had based the choice, Lord Scarman affirmed that there is dependably
an assumption of law that mens rea is required before an individual can be held blameworthy of
a criminal offense. The presence of this assumption was reaffirmed in exceptionally solid terms
by the House of Lords in B (a minor) v DPP (2000)1.

In B (a minor) v DPP (2000) a 15-year-old kid had sat straightaway to a 13-year-old young lady
and requesting that her give him a 'shiner'. The trial judge watched that this, in the dialect of the
present plated youth, evidently implies, not a bruised eye, be that as it may, a demonstration of
oral sex'. The kid was accused of affecting a kid younger than 14 to submit a demonstration of
gross profanity. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal decided this was a Strict liability
offense and that there was subsequently no barrier accessible that the kid trusted the young lady
to be more than 14. The House of Lords affirmed that there was an assumption that mens rea was
required, and decided that the pertinent offense was not really one of Strict liability. The House
expressed that with a specific end goal to refute the assumption that an offense required mens
rea, there should have been a 'compellingly clear ramifications' that Parliament planned the
offense to be one of Strict liability:

The test isn't whether it is a sensible ramification that the statute precludes mens rea as a
constituent piece of the wrongdoing – the test is whether it is a vital ramifications. As the offense
had an exceptionally wide actus reus, conveyed a genuine social disgrace and a substantial
sentence it chose Parliament did not have this goal. Before long a while later the House of Rulers
affirmed its hesitance to discover Strict liability offenses in R v K (2001)2.

These cases have tossed question on the old instance of Prince (1874) which had additionally
been worried about an offense against the individual that must be submitted on a young lady
under a particular age. That offense had been dealt with as one of Strict liability and the sensible
yet mixed up conviction of the respondent as to her age was in this manner observed to be
insignificant. The House of Lords portrayed that case as 'unsound' and a 'relic from an age dead
and gone'. In R v K the House of Lords depicted Prince as a 'spent power'.

1
B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428
2
R v K [2001] UKHL 41
While there is a reasonable assumption that mens rea is required, in the event that the courts find
that Parliament had an unmistakable goal to make a Strict liability offense then Strict liability
will be forced and the assumption will be refuted. Along these lines in R v G (2008) 3 the House
of Lords held that an offense known as 'statutory assault' made by Parliament in s. 5 of the
Sexual Offenses Act 2003 was a Strict liability offense. The offense is submitted when a man has
sex with a kid younger than 13. The respondent for the situation had just been 15 at the time of
the asserted occurrence and the casualty conceded that she had misled him on a before event
about her age. In spite of this, the House of Lords still found the respondent at risk since his
oversight about her age was superfluous since this was a Strict liability offense. There are sure
factors which can, all alone or consolidated, dislodge the assumption that mens rea is required.
These can be gathered into four classes which will be considered thus.

Regulatory offence

An administrative offense is one in which no genuine good issue is included, and for the most
part (despite the fact that not generally) one for which the most extreme punishment is little – the
mass of tenets encompassing the offer of sustenance are illustrations. In Gammon it was
expressed that the assumption that mens rea is required was less solid for administrative offenses
than for really criminal offenses.

This refinement between evident violations and administrative offenses was attracted the
instance of Sweet v Parsley (1970).4 Ms Sweet, an educator, took a sublease of a farmhouse
outside Oxford. She leased the house to occupants, and once in a while spent whenever there.
Obscure to her, the occupants were smoking cannabis on the premises. When they were gotten,
she was discovered liable of being worried in the administration of premises which were being
utilized to smoke cannabis, in opposition to the Hazardous Drugs Act 1965 (now supplanted by
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).

Ms Sweet bid, on the ground that she didn't know anything about what the inhabitants were
doing, and couldn't sensibly have been relied upon to have known. Ruler Reid recognized that

3
R v G & R [2003] 3 WLR
4
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132
Strict liability was fitting for administrative offenses, or 'quasicrimes' – offenses which are not
criminal 'in any genuine sense', and are only acts restricted in people in general intrigue. Be that
as it may, he stated, the sort of wrongdoing to which a genuine social disgrace is appended ought
to for the most part require verification of mens rea; on account of such offenses it was not in the
open intrigue that a guiltless individual ought to be kept from demonstrating their honesty so as
to make it simpler for liable individuals to be indicted. Since their Lordships viewed the offense
under thought just like a 'genuine wrongdoing' – the shame had, for instance, made Ms Sweet
lose her activity – they held that it was not a Strict liability offense, and since Ms Sweet did not
have the important mens rea, her conviction was upset.

Lamentably the courts have never set out a rundown of those offenses which they will consider
to be administrative offenses as opposed to 'genuine violations'. Those for the most part
considered to be administrative offenses are the kind made by the guidelines on cleanliness and
estimation gauges inside the nourishment and drink industry, and controls intended to stop
industry dirtying the earth, yet there are unmistakably a few kinds of offenses which will be
harder to sort.

Issue of social concern

As indicated by Gammon, where a statute is worried about an issue of social concern (for
example, open wellbeing), and the production of Strict liability will advance the reason for the
statute by urging potential guilty parties to play it safe against conferring the precluded
demonstration, the assumption for mens rea can be invalidated. This classification is clearly
subject to the refinements drawn by Lord Reid in Sweet v Parsley – the laws against murder and
assault are to secure people in general, yet this kind of obvious wrongdoing would not draw in
Strict liability. The sorts of offenses that do fall into this classification cover conduct which
could include risk to the general population, however which would not for the most part convey
a similar sort of shame as a wrongdoing, for example, kill or even burglary. The break of the
building directions conferred in Gammon is a case, as are offenses identifying with genuine
contamination of the condition.

In R v Blake (1996) the litigant was blamed for making communicates on a privateer radio
station and was sentenced utilizing remote telecommunication gear without a permit, in
opposition to s. 1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 19495. His conviction was maintained by
the Court of Appeal which expressed that this offense was one of Strict liability. This conclusion
was come to as the offense had been made in light of a legitimate concern for open security,
given the impedance with the activity of the crisis benefits that could result from unapproved
broadcasting.

In Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999) the offense of offering National Lottery
tickets to a man younger than 16 was observed to be an offense of Strict liability.6 The Divisional
Court legitimized this by expressing that the enactment managed an issue of social concern.
These violations cover with administrative offenses in branch of knowledge yet, not at all like
administrative offenses may convey serious most extreme punishments. Notwithstanding such
higher punishments, Strict liability apparently is a fundamental arrangement given the need to
advance elevated requirements of mind in territories of conceivable peril.

The wording of the Act

Gammon expresses that the assumption that mens rea is required for a criminal offense can be
countered if the expressions of a statute recommend that Strict liability is planned. The House of
Lords said in Sweet v Parsley: 'the way that different segments of the Act explicitly required
mens rea, for instance, since they contain "intentionally", isn't in itself adequate to legitimize a
choice that a segment which is quiet as to mens rea makes a [strict liability] offense'. 7 At
introduce it isn't generally certain whether a specific type of words will be deciphered as making
an offense of Strict liability. Nonetheless, a few words have been translated decently reliably,
including the accompanying.

5
R. v. Blake, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 503, 2004 SCC 69
6
Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and another [1999] 3 All ER 302 - S 13 NLA.
7
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132
 ‘Cause’

In Alphacell v Woodward (1972) the respondents were an organization blamed for causing
contaminated issue to enter a stream.8 They were utilizing hardware intended to keep any flood
into the stream, yet when the instrument ended up stopped up by leaves the contamination could
get away. There was no proof that the respondents had been careless, or indeed, even realized
that the contamination was spilling out. The House of Lords expressed that where statutes make
an offense of making something happen, the courts ought to receive a presence of mind approach
– if sensible individuals would state that the litigant has caused a remark, paying little heed to
whether he or she knew he or she was doing as such, at that point no mens rea is required. Their
Lordships held that in the ordinary significance of the word, the organization had 'caused' the
contamination to enter the water, and their conviction was maintained.

‘Possession’

There are numerous offenses which are characterized as 'being in control of a precluded thing',
the conspicuous illustration being drugs. They are every now and again regarded as Strict
liability offenses. For instance, s. 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 gives: A man confers an offense if,
without the expert of the Defense Council . . . he has in his ownership . . . (b) any weapon of
whatever depiction planned or adjusted for the release of any toxic fluid, gas or other thing. In R
v Deyemi (2007) the litigants had been found possessing an electrical stungun which they
asserted to have confused for a light.9 The offense was deciphered as a Strict liability offense
thus it was unimportant on the off chance that they had committed an error. The cruelty of this
approach is featured by an announcement by the trial judge. . . [A]lthough it offends one's feeling
of equity to avoid mens rea from an offense so a litigant can be blameworthy of being in control
of something when he knows he is under lock and key, in the event that it is a disallowed article,
yet he supposes it is something other than what's expected, and that view isn't nonsensical,having
respect to its appearance and use, I am fulfilled that that is the situation Parliament proposed to

8
ALPHACELL LTD V WOODWARD: HL 3 MAY 1972

9
R. v Deyemi and Edwards [2007] EWCA Crim 2060
make in making the offense one of Strict liability. The conviction was in this way maintained by
the Court of Appeal.

‘Knowingly’

Unmistakably utilization of this word tells the courts that mens rea is required, and has a
tendency to be utilized where Parliament needs to underline the way that the assumption ought to
be connected.

The smallness of the penalty

Strict liability is regularly forced for offenses which convey a moderately little greatest
punishment, and it creates the impression that the higher the most extreme punishment, the more
outlandish it is that the courts will force Strict liability. Be that as it may, the presence of serious
punishments for an offense does not ensure that Strict liability won't be forced. In Gammon Lord
Scarman held that where controls were set up to secure open wellbeing, it was very fitting to
force Strict liability, in spite of conceivably serious punishments.

Relevance of the four factors

Clearly these four variables cover to a specific degree – administrative offenses normally do
have little punishments, for instance. What's more, in Alphacell v Woodward, the House of
Lords gave their choice the double defense of applying the presence of mind significance of the
term 'cause', and perceiving that contamination was an issue of social concern.10 Note that every
one of these classifications are rules instead of clear principles. The courts are not generally
reliable in their utilization of Strict liability, and social arrangement has a vital impact in the
choices. Amid the 1960s, there was exceptional social worry about what gave off an impression
of being an across the board sedate issue, and the courts forced Strict liability for some
medications offenses. After ten years, contamination of the earth had end up one of the principle
points of concern, consequently the avocation of the choice in Alphacell v Woodward. Today,
there gives off an impression of being a general move far from Strict liability, furthermore, some
more up to date statutes forcing obvious Strict liability contain a constrained frame of protection,
by which a blamed can escape conviction by demonstrating that he or she took every single
10
ALPHACELL LTD V WOODWARD: HL 3 MAY 1972
sensible insurance to keep the offense being submitted. Be that as it may, the courts could start to
move back towards Strict liability in the event that it appeared that a zone of social concern
might require it.

Approaches of the Indian Court

Directly, let us consider approaches taken by courts in India. The law and the perplexity made by
it in England were joined into our legal system as well. The 1965 example of Mayer Hans
George v. Region of Maharashtra continues being the locus classicus on the issue because of the
special points of view on a comparative issue.11 The differing minority judgment of Subbarao J
immovably underlined the standard law suspicion of mens rea insisting that a court can't
"disregard mens rea on a perilous ground of a welfare measure unless the statute compels it to do
all things considered." The possibility of mens rea that will be derived in a statute making an
offense depends upon the topic of the showing and the courses of action thereof. The
presumption of mens rea can be unstuck by seeing if it is overborne by the tongue of the statute,
read in the light of the articles and inspirations driving the statute and whether the explanation
behind the statute would be rendered purposeless if the essential is seen to be imperative. Thus,
according to the repudiating judge, the request whether mens rea is a key component of a
'criminal' offense will be picked by the court, when a case comes up. This is the place the
tradition that, "unless a statute, either clearly or by key consequences, rebates mens rea as a
constituent bit of bad behaviors, the court should not find a man culpable of the offense unless he
had a subject identity" turns into a fundamental factor. This control could be utilized as a part of
those monetary offenses, where the discipline is pretty much nothing.

This recommendation can't be recognized in light of the fact that it makes unwanted
indeterminacy in law, especially criminal law, which isn't appealing with respect to solitary
flexibility. The larger part judgment moreover received a comparable technique yet
accomplished a substitute conclusion, since it thought sneaking to have the effect of "irritating
inconsiderately the national economy of the country." For another circumstance, it was held that
where it can't be said that the dissent of the statute would be vanquished if the mens rea is

11
State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George 1965 AIR 722
scrutinized as a settling, courts should be move back to shed it. The standard law presumption
was thusly imparted into the Indian law. For example, in an arraignment under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, it is no protect that the vendor was torpid that the article being sold is
misbranded or spoiled. The request, paying little heed to whether the hazard under a statute is out
and out, is finally one of advancement of the statute and the proper reaction will depend upon the
tongue of the statute and the methodology behind it and how far necessity would be impacted by
adhering to the fundamental. It is more a matter of rationale than criminal law.

M H George was depended by various courts in the country, generally countering the mens rea
presumption. An employee who sold polluted support in light of a legitimate concern for his
supervisor was held to be in danger under an exhibition, which was "a welfare authorization to
turn away prosperity hazards by eating up degraded sustenance". Provision in an exhibition
requested with a view to safe-screen the energy of individuals all in all concerning trust money
was held to be an inside and out offense, as "it was guilty just with fine" and "passes on no
disfavor with it." The example is in every way changing with the peak court decision in Union of
India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors., which held that "authoritative cassus omissus
can't be given by lawful interpretative process" while considering whether mens rea should be
considered or not.12 There are distinctive cases which declined to go into the piece of mens rea
by any extend of the creative ability. The perspective of the court, it is submitted, in Dharmendra
is in every way the best possible position to take because of the going with reasons:

The statutes making new infringement address the undertakings of the chamber to offer effect to
the criminal technique existing separated from everything else. Representing body is in this way
on a very basic level stressed over finding the best technique for dealing with a particular
insidiousness and its decisions are not come to by an attentive regard to the general measures of
criminal law. The law commission watches that, as these statutes reflect a particular criminal
approach, it should not be found in conjunction with the offenses in the Indian Penal Code or
toward the day's end, that it should be seen as 'semi criminal'. Likewise, "the chamber and the
council may endeavor to set up the bosses of law at whatever point with powers required around
at that point, considering the all-encompassing conditions, the nature and level of activities of

12
Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors. 2008 AIR 844
dodgers and the level of vitality basic for the officers actualizing the law, including standards and
notices to oversee miscreants."

In strict hazard offenses, the usage association like the police and government workplaces don't
"slip like wolf on the wrinkle." They all around consider the subject of fault when arraigning. In
any case, this approach may assign the piece of fault to the implementer which may not appeal.

Further, nonappearance of desire can be found in two settings – mindlessness both of law or the
appropriate substances. The commitment of the individual is more unmistakable in these
conditions because of the distinctively dangerous activity included. In examples of deadness of
truth a sensible approach is ask: has the respondent's lead demonstrated a freakish carelessness
for telling himself of the evident facts included? What is proposed here is that however a couple
of conditions warrant weight of strict commitment there are diverse conditions wherein the
sensibility of the on-screen character's lead may be considered.

Crimes of Negligence

Following the choice of Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1999) – it is doubtful that

violations of carelessness, for example, net carelessness murder, are really violations of Strict
liability. This is on account of all things considered the Court of Appeal expressed that gross
carelessness was not a type of mens rea and that a man could be found to have been terribly
careless without taking a gander at their perspective however just by looking at the gross lack of
regard of their lead.

The effect of mistake

Where Strict liability applies, a blamed can't utilize the protection for botch, regardless of
whether the botch was sensible. The House of Lords judgment of B (a minor) v DPP is
somewhat misdirecting on this issue as it appears to obscure the refinement between botches
made in connection to Strict liability offenses and oversights made in connection to offenses
requiring mens rea.13 This refinement is, be that as it may, crucial. As the case was worried about

13
B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428
an offense that required mens rea, anything it expressed in connection to Strict liability offenses
was only obiter dicta and along these lines not authoritative on future courts.

Arguments in favour of strict liability

Promotion of care

By advancing elevated expectations of care, Strict liability, it is contended, shields people in

general from hazardous practices. Social researcher Barbara Wootton has safeguarded Strict
liability on this premise, recommending that if the target of criminal law is to avert socially
harming exercises, it is ludicrous to choose not to see to the individuals who cause the damage
due to thoughtlessness, carelessness or even a mishap.

Deterrent value

Strict liability is said to give a solid obstruction, which is considered particularly imperative
given the manner by which administrative offenses have a tendency to be managed. Huge
numbers of them are taken care of not by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),
however by unique Government bodies, for example, the Health and Safety Inspectorate which
watches that security rules are seen in working environments. These bodies tend to work by
setting weight on guilty parties to put right any ruptures, with indictment, or even dangers of it,
particularly a final resort. It is recommended that Strict liability enables requirement
organizations to reinforce their dealing position, since potential wrongdoers realize that if an
arraignment is brought, there is a decent possibility of conviction.

Easier enforcement

Strict liability makes authorizing offenses less demanding; in Gammon the Privy Council
recommended that if the indictment needed to demonstrate mens rea in even the littlest
administrative offense, the organization of equity may rapidly arrive at an entire halt.
Difficulty of proving mens rea

In numerous Strict liability offenses, mens rea would be exceptionally hard to demonstrate, and
without Strict liability, blameworthy individuals may escape conviction. Clear cases are those
including extensive organizations, where it might be hard to demonstrate that somebody
comprehended what was happening.

No threat to liberty

In numerous Strict liability cases, the litigant is a business and the punishment is a fine, so
person freedom isn't for the most part under risk. Indeed, even the fines are regularly little.

Profit from risk

Where an offense is worried about business, the individuals who confer it might well spare
themselves cash, and in this manner making additional benefit by doing as such – by, for
instance, sparing the time that would be spent on watching security controls. On the off chance
that a man makes a hazard and makes a benefit thusly, he or she should be subject if that hazard
causes or could cause hurt, regardless of whether that was not the expectation.

Arguments against strict liability

Injustice

Strict liability is reprimanded as low on a wide range of grounds. To start with, that it isn't in the
interests of equity that somebody who has taken sensible care, and couldn't in any way, shape or
form have abstained from carrying out an offense, ought to be rebuffed by the criminal law. This
conflicts with the rule that the criminal law rebuffs blame.

Also, the contention that Strict liability ought to be implemented in light of the fact that mens rea
would be excessively troublesome, making it impossible to demonstrate is ethically dicey. The
indictment frequently think that its hard to demonstrate mens rea on an assault charge, for
instance, yet is that a purpose behind making assault a wrongdoing of Strict liability? Albeit
numerous Strict liability offenses are unmistakably far lesser violations than these, some do force
serious punishments, as Gammon represents, and it may not be in light of a legitimate concern
for equity if Strict liability is forced in these territories since mens rea would make things
excessively troublesome for the arraignment. It is conflicting with equity to convict somebody
who isn't blameworthy, in the typical feeling of the word, in light of the fact that the punishment
forced will be little.

Indeed, even where punishments are little, much of the time conviction is a discipline in itself.
Condemning might be customized to assess alleviating factors, however that is little solace to the
trustworthy butcher who unwittingly offers terrible meat, when the case is accounted for in
neighborhood papers and clients go somewhere else. However slight the discipline, by and by
there is some disgrace joined to a criminal conviction (despite the fact that it might be not
exactly that for a 'genuine wrongdoing') which ought not be joined to a man who has taken all
sensible care.

Likewise, as Smith and Hogan (2005) bring up, on account of a jury trial, Strict liability removes
vital inquiries of truth from juries, and enables them to be considered exclusively by the judge
for the motivations behind condemning.14 In an officers' court, it expels those inquiries from the
necessity of evidence past sensible uncertainty, and permits them to be chosen by the less strict
standards which direct choices on condemning.

Strict liability additionally designates a decent arrangement of energy to the caution of the
implementation office. Where Strict liability makes it relatively sure that an indictment will
prompt a conviction, the choice on regardless of whether to indict winds up basic, and there are
few controls over the individuals who settle on this choice.

Ineffective

It is far from being obviously true whether Strict liability really works. For a begin, the hindrance
estimation of Strict liability might be overestimated. For the sorts of offenses to which Strict
liability is generally connected, the vital hindrance factor may not be the odds of being
sentenced, in any case, the odds of being gotten and charged. In the sustenance and beverages
business especially, simply being accused of an offense brings unwelcome exposure, and
regardless of whether the organization isn't sentenced, they are probably going to see a fall in
deals as clients apply the 'no smoke without flame' standard. The issue is that much of the time

14
Smith vs. Hogan (2005)
the odds of being gotten and arraigned are not high. In any case, authorization offices every now
and again do not have the assets to screen the enormous number of potential guilty parties.
Indeed, even where guilty parties are gotten, it creates the impression that the standard reaction
of requirement organizations is a cautioning letter. The most genuine or diligent guilty parties
might be debilitated with arraignment on the off chance that they don't put matters right, yet just
a minority are really arraigned.

Giving more assets to the implementation organizations and bringing more arraignments might
have a more grounded impediment impact than forcing Strict liability on the minority who are
arraigned. In different zones as well, it is the shot of getting captured which might be the most
grounded impediment – if individuals think they are probably not going to get discovered
speeding, for instance, the way that Strict liability will be forced in the event that they do isn't
quite a bit of an obstacle. Actually in a few regions, as opposed to guaranteeing a higher standard
of care, Strict liability may have a remarkable inverse impact: realizing that it is conceivable to
be indicted an offense notwithstanding having played it safe may lessen the motivator to take
such safeguards, instead of increment it. As Professor Hall (1963) calls attention to, the way that
Strict liability is generally forced as it were where the conceivable punishment is little implies
that deceitful organizations can basically see the criminal law as 'an ostensible duty on illicit
endeavor'. In regions of industry where the need to keep up a decent notoriety isn't so solid as it
is in nourishment or medications, for case, it might be less expensive to continue paying the fines
than to change terrible working practices, what's more, in this manner next to no obstruction
esteem can be seen. In these regions it may be more effective, as Professor Hall says, 'to put
genuine teeth in the law' by creating offenses with more serious punishments, regardless of
whether that implies losing the convenience of Strict liability.

Advocating Strict liability in light of a legitimate concern for ensuring people in general can be
viewed as taking a heavy hammer to pop open a nut. It is surely valid, for instance, that terrible
meat causes sustenance harming only the same regardless of whether the butcher knew it was
terrible, and that the open needs assurance from butchers who offer terrible meat. Be that as it
may, while we may need to ensure discipline for butchers who intentionally offer terrible meat,
and most likely those who take no, or insufficient, care to check the state of their meat, how is
the open secured by rebuffing a butcher who took all conceivable care (by utilizing an ordinarily
respectable provider for instance) and couldn't in any way, shape or form have abstained from
submitting the offense? The way that it isn't generally conceivable to perceive violations of Strict
liability before the courts have settled on a choice unmistakably additionally debilitates any
hindrance impact.

Little administrative advantage

It is additionally open to wrangle about whether Strict liability truly contributes much to
authoritative practicality. Cases still must be distinguished and conveyed to court, and in a few
cases chose components of the mens rea still must be demonstrated. Also, albeit Strict liability
may make conviction simpler, it leaves the issue of condemning. This can't be done reasonably
without considering the level of carelessness, so confirmation of the blamed's state for mind must
be accessible. Given this it is hard to perceive how much time and labor is really spared.

Inconsistent application

The way that regardless of whether Strict liability will be forced lays on the loose science of
statutory translation implies that there are inconsistencies in both the offenses to which it is
connected, and what it really implies. The adjustments in the sorts of cases to which Strict
liability is connected throughout the years reflect social approach – the courts descend harder on
territories which are causing social worry at a specific time. While this might be supported in
light of a legitimate concern for society, it does little for sureness and the rule that like cases
ought to be dealt with alike. The courts are additionally conflicting in their supports for forcing
or not forcing Strict liability. In Lim Chin Aik v R (1963), the respondent was accused of
remaining in Singapore in spite of a forbiddance arrange against him.15 Ruler Evershed
expressed that the subject matter of a statute was not adequate justification for deducing that
Strict liability was expected; it was likewise essential to consider in the case of forcing Strict
liability would help to authorize the directions, and it could just do this if there were a few
precautionary measures the potential guilty party could take to avoid submitting the offense.

'Unless this is thus, there is no reason in punishing him and it can't be gathered that the
lawmaking body forced Strict liability only so as to locate an unfortunate casualty.' On account

15
Lim Chin Aik vs. R [1963] 1 All ER 223
of Lim Chin Aik, the safety measure to be taken would have been discovering regardless of
whether there was a denial arrange against him, yet Lord Evershed additionally clarified that
individuals must be required to take 'sensible' and 'practicable' safety measures: Lim Button Aik
was not anticipated that would 'influence nonstop enquiry to see to whether a request had been
made against him'. Probably at that point, our theoretical butcher should just be relied upon to
take sensible furthermore, practicable safety measures against offering terrible meat, and not, for
instance, need to utilize logical examiners to test each pork cleave. However simply such
extraordinary insurances seem to have been normal in Smedleys v Breed (1974).16 The litigants
were indicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, after a little caterpillar was found in one of
three million tins of peas. In spite of the way that even individual assessment of each pea would
likely not have kept the offense being submitted, Lord Hailsham protected the inconvenience of
Strict liability in light of the fact that: 'To understand the Food and Medications Act 1955 out of
a sense less strict than that which I have embraced would make a genuine advance on the
enactment for buyer security.' Clearly the branches of knowledge of these cases are altogether
different, yet the complexity between them gives some sign of the unstable ground on which
Strict liability can rest – if the House of Lords had taken after the thinking of Lim Chin Aik,
Smedleys would not have been at risk, since they had taken all sensible and useful safeguards.

Better alternatives are available

There are other options to Strict liability which would be not so much uncalled for but rather
more viable in averting hurt, for example, better investigation of business premises and the
inconvenience of obligation for carelessness.

Reform

The Law Commission’s draft Bill

The Law Commission's draft Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill of 1977 requires that
Parliament ought to explicitly state in the event that it is making an offense of Strict liability.
Where this isn't done the courts ought to expect mens rea is required. The act of permitting the
courts to choose when Strict liability ought to be connected, under front of the fiction that they

16
Smedleys vs. Breed : HL 1974
are deciphering parliamentary aim, isn't useful, prompting a mass of suit, with a considerable lot
of the cases beyond reconciliation with each other – as with Lim Chin Aik and Smedleys v
Breed, previously. On the off chance that lawmakers realized that the courts would dependably
expect mens rea unless particularly advised not to, they would probably embrace the propensity
for expressing regardless of whether the offense was strict or not.

Restriction to public danger offences

Strict liability could maybe be all the more effectively defended if the more tightly risk were
adjusted by genuine risk to the general population in the offense – the instance of Gammon can
be legitimized on this ground.

Liability for negligence

Smith and Hogan propose that Strict liability ought to be traded by obligation for carelessness.
This would get respondents who were just negligent or wasteful, and additionally the individuals
who purposely infringed upon the law, however would not rebuff individuals who were truly
irreproachable.

Defense of all due care

In Australia a protection of all due care is accessible. Where a wrongdoing would somehow or
another force Strict liability, the respondent can maintain a strategic distance from conviction by
demonstrating that he or she took all due care to abstain from conferring the offense.

Extending strict liability

Baroness Wootton advocates imposing strict liability for all crimes, so that mens rea would only
be relevant for sentencing purposes.
 Reading list

 Carson, D. (1970) ‘Some sociological aspects of strict liability’ [1970] Modern Law Review 225.
 Hogan, B. (1978) ‘The mental element in crime; strict liability’ [1978] Criminal Law Review 74.
 Jackson, B. (1982) ‘Storkwain: a case study in strict liability and self-regulation’ [1991] Criminal
Law Review 892.
 Simester, A. (ed.) (2005) Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford: OUP.
 Wootton, B. (1981) Crime and the Criminal Law: Reflections of a Magistrate and Social Scientist,
London: Stevens.

Reading on the internet

The website of the Health and Safety Executive, responsible for the enforcement of a range of strict
liability offences, can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk