Difference between revisions of "Strict liability"
DamianJohn (talk | contribs) |
DamianJohn (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A '''Strict Liability''' offence is one there is a rebuttable presumption that [[mens rea]] is present. | A '''Strict Liability''' offence is one there is a rebuttable presumption that [[mens rea]] is present. | ||
| − | 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 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. | |
| + | |||
| + | 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]] | ||
Revision as of 10:25, April 17, 2012
A Strict Liability offence is one there is a rebuttable presumption that mens rea is present.
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 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.
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.