In answering the question of whether and to what extent it is justifiable to hold responsible for criminal offences, those who possess no mens rea, it has been discussed that usually mens rea is a crucial element of criminal liability in criminal law. Such an advantage of Strict Liability is the one for which it was originally made - to stop people getting away without punishment because mens rea couldn't be proven. ACCEPT, (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839 Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. P was applying in his own interest and that of all taxpayers and voters. The crime is one of social concern; or 3. The Criminal Courts and Lay People - Key Cases. Smedleys Limited v Breed: HL 1974 - swarb.co.uk Section 5 creates the offence of possessing a controlled drug, but s28 goes on to provide that a defendant should be acquitted if he can show that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, that the substance was a prohibited drug. The caterpillar was of a size, colour, density and weight similar to that of the peas in the tin. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. how to cook atama soup with waterleaf. Strict Liability Offences Flashcards by bob Renalds | Brainscape 70-6, December 2006. On a charge against the defendants in respect of the sale of the tin to the prejudice of the purchaser of food not of the substance demanded, contrary to section 2 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act. If D kills a man thinking mistakenly that it was perfectly A D, a butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to check it was fit for human consumption . On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. In this essay, I am going to discuss pure economic loss negligence and the approach of the judiciary to a claim. 738, D.C. Evans v. Jones [1953] 1 W.L.R. 22Lord Reid in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132. Extra Cases Flashcards by USER 1 | Brainscape The Food and Drugs Act, 1955 (s. 113) provides a means whereby, if prosecuted for an offence under the Act, a defendant can seek to cast the blame upon a third party and exonerate himself, and, in order to save the needless expense of an unnecessary prosecution, the local authority is empowered, when it is reasonably satisfied that a defence of this kind could be established, to short circuit proceedings by prosecuting the third party direct. Smedleys V Breed 1974 This was an example of a regulatory offence which is based on food regulation; they were found guilty when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas; the conviction was upheld even though precautions were taken. It reads (so far as material) as follows: The appellants did not seek themselves to make use of this procedure as regards any third party, and thus the case before the Magistrates turned (, section 2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". . 21 H.L., a case that offers some assistance on the meaning of "unavoidable . Another way to circumvent the principle of coincidence is found in Miller 1983.35 Accordingly, if a person creates a dangerous situation without mens rea, he or she is responsible to avert the danger caused. . 759. The justices were of opinion that the offence charged was an absolute offence and that, although the defendants had taken all reasonable care to prevent the caterpillar's presence, it was not an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the peas, and the defendants were convicted. However, the proportionality principle, in contrast to the malice principle, restricts this form of liability to occasions in which the harm caused was not disproportionate to the intended harm. The then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said: It has never been the rule in this country I hope it never will be that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution. He pointed out that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions only intervene to direct a prosecution when they consider it in the public interest to do so and he cited a statement made by Lord Simon in 1925 when he said: there is no greater nonsense talked about the Attorney-Generals duty than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney-General ought to decide to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what the lawyers call a case. He then took her back to where he met her and she returned home to her father. It was held by the House of Lords that in order to establish a defence under s3(3) it was necessary to show that the presence of the extraneous matter was a consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the food and that that consequence could not have been avoided by any human agency; it was not sufficient for the defendant to show that he had taken all reasonable care to avoid the presence of the extraneous matter. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with, and, on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the first-mentioned person might have been charged.". It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. The defendant, who was a floor-layer by occupation, sold scent as a side-line. The defendant was charged under s55 OAPA 1861. Summary offences 2 Q . He was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug contrary to s1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (now replaced). Moreover, the imposition of strict liability requires the promotion of the object of the statute. smedleys v breed 1974 case summary - cabotgroup.ca 21Monaghan, N, Criminal Law (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2014) 25 et seq. Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. 5Ashworth, A., Belief, Intent and Criminal Liability, in J. Eekelaar and J. It reads (so far as material) as follows: "A person against whom proceedings are brought under this Act shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if, after the contravention has been proved, the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.". Originally created for students of Wyke Sixth Form College. From local authority to the Dorchester magistrates, from the Dorchester magistrates to a Divisional Court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England, from the Lord Chief Justice to the . 220; [1973] 3 All E.R. 1487 was not applicable and Southworth v. Whitewell Dairies (1958) 122 J.P. 322 could be distinguished; and that Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. Press, 2001) 68 et seq. Convicted for selling peas some of which had caterpillars in. W. C. Turner, The Mental Element in Crimes at Common Law in L. Radzinowicz and J. W. C. Turner (eds), The Modern Approach to Criminal Law (London: Macmillan, 1945) 195-261. The presumption of mens rea has been affirmed by the House of Lords to apply to all statutory offences.33 Accordingly, serious offences are more likely to need evidence of mens rea. 2 (1), 3 (3), Food and Drugs - Act or default of third person - Canners - Large quantities of peas canned - Proper system of inspection during processing - Caterpillar found in one tin supplied to retailer - Proceedings against suppliers -Whether presence of caterpillar unavoidable consequence of process of collection or preparation - Whether statutory defence established - Food and Drugs Act 1955, ss. The essence of such crimes is to prevent harm rather than to punish a moral wrong26 Furthermore, it is claimed that strict liability has an element of deterrence by encouraging people to follow regulations to protect others from harm.27, A further argument for strict liability is based on the ease of proof, as it is easier for the prosecution to establish criminal liability when the state of mind does not need to be proved.28 Furthermore, it is possible to justify strict liability offences by reference to their sanctions. The Court applied Lord Scarmans principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favour of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, truly criminal, yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence. You are not currently signed in - enter your email address and password into the boxes below, or create a new account. Types of offence include blasphemous libel (Lemon v Gay News, 1979), regulatory offences (Smedleys v Breed, 1974 and Sweet v Parsley, 1970) and cases involving public welfare (Harrow LBC v Shah, 1999). Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. It was contended by the prosecutor that section 2 (1) of the Act of 1955 created an absolute offence; that the defence under section 3 (3) was not available to the defendants because the presence of the caterpillar in the. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness.