Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − +
→top: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: In other words → In other words,
Typically strict liability offences are limited to traffic violations and other minor crimes. In order to defeat a strict liability charge for lack of intent, the defendant has a burden to show, on the [[Preponderance of the evidence|balance of probabilities]] that they did not have the requisite intent.
Typically strict liability offences are limited to traffic violations and other minor crimes. In order to defeat a strict liability charge for lack of intent, the defendant has a burden to show, on the [[Preponderance of the evidence|balance of probabilities]] that they did not have the requisite intent.
The classic example of this is the offence of drink-driving. Where Bob is recorded as having excess alcohol in their system, the prosecution does not have to show that the person intentionally drove drunk. If Bob can show that there was in fact an innocent explanation for the excess alcohol level, such as (say) consuming drinks that he genuinely thought were non-alcoholic, then he can escape the charge. The burden of proof would be on Bob to show, on the balance of probabilities that he was genuine in this belief. In other words there is a burden shift from the prosecution to the defence on mens rea in strict liability offences.
The classic example of this is the offence of drink-driving. Where Bob is recorded as having excess alcohol in their system, the prosecution does not have to show that the person intentionally drove drunk. If Bob can show that there was in fact an innocent explanation for the excess alcohol level, such as (say) consuming drinks that he genuinely thought were non-alcoholic, then he can escape the charge. The burden of proof would be on Bob to show, on the balance of probabilities that he was genuine in this belief. In other words, there is a burden shift from the prosecution to the defence on mens rea in strict liability offences.
Absolute liability offences are offences for which the presumption that mens rea is present is irrebuttable. Mere performance of the [[actus reus]] is sufficient for conviction in absolute liability offences.
Absolute liability offences are offences for which the presumption that mens rea is present is irrebuttable. Mere performance of the [[actus reus]] is sufficient for conviction in absolute liability offences.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Legal Terms]]