STRICT LIABILITY
1. INTRODUCTION:
Strict Liability Offences refer to a category of offenses that do not require the establishment of wrongful intent or negligence for an individual to be held responsible. In other words, an individual can be held accountable for their actions even if they did not intend to cause harm or were not aware of the potential consequences of their actions. These offenses are exceptions to the general rule that culpability requires fault, and are typically reserved for cases where public safety or welfare is at risk.
2. CONCEPT OF LIABILITY:
Liability is a term used to describe the legal responsibility that one bears for their actions. It is associated with the breach of a duty or obligation, resulting in an offense that causes harm or loss to another party. In other words, when someone acts against their duty and causes harm, they become liable for the consequences of their actions. Thus, liability arises from a wrongful act or a breach of duty.
3. MEANING OF LIABILITY:
According to Markby;
"The word liability is used to describe the condition of a person who must perform".
4. KINDS OF LIABILITY:
Liability is of the 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:
Offenses can be classified into two types: those that require proof of intention, recklessness, and negligence, and those of strict liability, where a person is held responsible regardless of wrongful intent or negligence.
6. DEFINITION OF STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES:
(1) GENERAL DEFINITION:
"Acts, for which a man is held responsible irrespective of the existence of either wrongful intent or negligence, are said to be offenses 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 offenses of strict liability."
(IV) ACCORDING TO CASE LAW MEANING:
White House Vs. Lemon "An offense 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:
(1) GENERAL RULE:
The general rule in criminal law is that 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 offenses.
(ii) EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
There are certain exceptions to this general rule as follows;
(i) Vicarious Liability:
A master may be held liable for the acts of his servant even though he 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 the part of his employee. However, the Libel Act, of 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 offense to publish inaccurate reports of evidence at trial in such a manner that the members of the jury might be influenced in their decision. This has been affirmed by the Contempt of Court Act, of 1981.
(iv) Blasphemy:
Writing is blasphemous when it tends 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 that are likely to shock or outrage some people.
9. EXAMPLES OF STRICT LIABILITY:
In Pakistan, the penalty for some of the strict liability offenses 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 form has to be paid.
- (V) Weapons
- (vi) Driving and traffic offenses.
10. SIGNIFICANCE OF STRICT LIABILITY:
The 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 the 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 the case of Khata where compensation has to be paid to the victim.
12. SITUATIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF STRICT LIABILITY:
According to Salmond, the wrongs of strict liability fall into the following three categories;
(1) MISTAKE OF FACT:
Mistake of fact is generally a good defense 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 a plaintiff believing in good faith to be someone else who was wanted by the police under the 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. the recognized principle in all legal systems that "ignorantia juris neminem excusat" which means that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore knowledge of law is necessary; everyone should know law.
Case Law: R Vs. Prince, 1875
Facts: The 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: The court held that the 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:
The accident is of two kinds;
(i) Culpable:
Accident is culpable when it is due to negligence. The culpable accident is no defense.
(ii) Inevitable:
Accidents are inevitable when they cannot be avoided. Inevitable accident is a good defense both in civil law and criminal cases.
13. CONCLUSION:
In some cases, certain offenses are considered to have strict liability, which means that the mental element or Mens Rea is not necessary to prove the crime. This is an exception to the general rule that both Mens Rea and Actus Reus must be demonstrated to prove a crime. In other words, in strict liability offenses, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the actus reus, or the physical act of the crime, regardless of whether or not they had the intent to commit the crime. This type of offense is typically used in situations where public safety is at risk, such as in cases involving the production or distribution of unsafe products.
#StrictLiability #CriminalLaw #LegalConcepts #LiabilityTypes #PublicWelfare #LegalResponsibility #NoFaultCrime #LegalDefinitions #PublicSafety