1. INTRODUCTION
Strict Liability Offences are those for which a man is
responsible irrespective of the existence of either wrongful intent or
negligence. They are the exceptions to the general requirement of fault.
2. CONCEPT OF LIABILITY
Liability implies the state, of a person who has acted
contrary to a duty. Thus liability is the responsibility which befalls an
offend when he commits an offence. Liability arises from a breach of a duty and
wrong.
3. MEANING OF LIABILITY
According to Markby;
"The word
liability is used to describe the condition of a person who has a duty to
perform".
4. KINDS OF LIABILITY
Liability is of following kinds;
(i) Criminal Liability
(ii) Civil Liability
(iii) Remedial Liability
(iv) Penal Liability
(v) Vicarious Liability
(vi) Strict Liability
5. CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY
To discuss the concept of strict liability we need to first
look at the classification of offences. Offences can broadly be classified in
two categories those which require proof of intention, recklessness and
negligence; and offences of strict liability i.e. where's person Is held
responsible irrespective of the existence of either wrongful intent or
negligence.
6. DEFINITION OF STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES
(I) GENERAL DEFINITION
"Acts. for which a man is held responsible irrespective
of the existence of either wrongful intent or negligence, are said to be
offences of strict liability.
(II) ACCORDING TO BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY
"Unlawful acts whose elements do not contain the need
for criminal intent or Mens Rea. These crimes are usually acts that endanger
the public welfare, such as illegal dumping of toxic wastes."
(III) ACCORDING TO SMITH & HOGAN
"Crimes which do not require intention, recklessness or
even negligence as to one or more elements in Actus Reus are known as offences
of strict liability."
(IV) ACCORDING TO CASE LAW MEANING
White House Vs. Lemon
"An offence is regarded properly as one of strict
liability, if no Mens Rea needs to be proved as to a single element in the
Actus Reus."
7. RULES REGARDING LIABILITY
(I) GENERAL RULE
The general rule in criminal law is that in order to prove a
crime, along with the Actus Reus, the presence of Mens Rea or guilty mind
should also be proved.
(II) STRICT LIABILITY; AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE
Strict liability crimes are exceptions to this general
principle where a person is punished for committing a wrong even if he has no
guilty mind. In such cases the law does not enquire whether the guilty person
had committed the wrong intentionally, negligently or innocently.
8. STRICT LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW
(I) GENERAL RULE
The general rule regarding strict liability in common law
was that there are no strict liability offences.
(II) EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE
There are certain exceptions to this general rule as
follows;
(i) Public Nuisance
A master may be held liable for the acts of his servant even
though he himself did not know it had taken place. More so of vicarious
liability.
(ii) Criminal Libel
A publisher could be held liable for criminal libel on part
of his employee. However the Libel Act, 1843 changed this rule' stating that it
was a valid defense to show that publication was without his authority.
(iii) Contempt of Court
It is an offence to publish inaccurate reports of evidence
at trial in such a manner that the members of jury might be influenced in their
decision. This has been affirmed by the Contempt of Court Act, 1981.
(iv) Blasphemy
Writing is blasphemous when it has a tendency to shock and
outrage the followers of a certain religion. It is not necessary to prove that
the defendant was aware of this tendency. It is sufficient to show that he
intentionally used words which in fact are likely to shock or outrage some
people.
9. EXAMPLES OF STRICT LIABILITY
In Pakistan, the penalty for some of the strict liability
offences even goes up to death. Here usually following are the areas where
strict liability offences are to be found;
(i) Blasphemy
(ii) Drugs
(iii) Qatl-i-Khata
(iv) Unintentional hurt where compensation in some forth has
to be paid.
(v) Weapons
(vi) Driving and traffic offences.
10. SIGNIFICANCE OF STRICT LIABILITY
Significance of Strict Liability can be observed by seeing
the reasons for imposing strict liability as follows;
(i) It is difficult to prove the intention or negligence of
the offender.
(ii) The primary function. of courts is the prevention of
crime and strict liability deals with this most effectively.
(iii) Without this theory many guilty people would escape.
(iv) It is necessary to impose strict liability in public
interest. For in many cases in which strict liability is imposed the public
does need protection against negligence.
11. STRICT LIABILITY AND ISLAMIC LAW
In Islamic Law, the general rule of proving intention is
strictly followed. Strict liability is against the general rule that acts are
to be determined in the light of intention. However strict liability has been used
in a limited way. e.g. in case of Khata where compensation has to be paid to
the victim.
12. SITUATIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF STRICT LIABILITY
According to Salmond, wrongs of strict liability fall into
following three categories;
(I) MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of fact is generally a good defence in criminal law,
but it is not an excuse in civil cases following the maxim; "Ignorantia
facte excusat", which means "mistake of fact is a good excuse".
It is also to be noted that mistake of fact is not always a good excuse in
criminal cases e.g. in cases of strict liability, the same was decided in R Vs.
Prince.
Case Law: R Vs. John White
Facts: A police officer arrests plaintiff believing in
good faith to be someone else who was wanted by the police under charge of
murder.
Held: It was held that the police officer was under a mistake
of fact, thus not liable.
(II) MISTAKE OF LAW
Strict Liability is applied in Mistake of Law. It is
well-recognized principle in all legal system that "ignorantia furls
neminem excusat" which means that ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore
knowledge of law is necessary; everyone should have the knowledge of law.
Case Law: R Vs. Prince, 1875
Facts: Accused abducted a girl under the age of 16, the
girl looked more than 16. The accused took the plea that when she took her away
the girl told her that she is 18.
Held: Court held that accused is liable Under Section 55
of The Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, for unlawfully taking a minor
girl under strict liability.
(III) ACCIDENTS
Accident is of two kinds;
(i) Culpable
Accident is culpable when it is due to negligence. Culpable
accident is no defense.
(ii)Inevitable
Accident is inevitable when it cannot be avoided. Inevitable
accident is a good defense both in civil law and criminal cases.
13. CONCLUSION
In Order to conclude we may say that certain offences have
strict liability, and Mens Rea is not essential in such crimes. Strict
liability offences are exceptions to the general rule which requires that in
order to prove a crime Mens Rea along Actus Reus must be proved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment