The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern; public safety is such an issue. This was also upheld in the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968]. . B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428; Belfon, R v [1976] 1 WLR 741; Harrrow London BC v Shah [2000] CRIM LR 692; R v K [2001] UKHL 41; Subscribe on YouTube. If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. The act of selling the ticket to someone who was actually under 16 was enough to make the defendants guilty, even though they had done their best to prevent this happening in their shop. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.". In a later case in the CA, Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC [1993], Tesco was convicted of strict liability offence for selling videos to under-age children and the Divisional Court rejected the argument that Tesco did know that the individual was under-age. Alphacell. This is distinguished from an offer which can be defined as a persons willingness to enter into a contract and be bounded by its term and conditions. 25th April 1998, during the course of his employment, Mr Hobday sold a national lottery ticket to a young boy who was thirteen-and-a-half. 4.2.3 Summary of strict liability. Section 13 has two important features. required is strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. Lord Russell said: Why then should the House, faced with a deliberate publication of that which a jury with every justification has held to be a blasphemous libel, consider that it should be for the prosecution to prove, presumably beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused recognised and intended it to be such The reason why the law considers that the publication of a blasphemous libel is an offence is that the law considers that such publications should not take place. The proof of only actus reus may apply to less serious crimes whereas mens rea is not required in many commercial agreements. All staff were told not to sell any lottery ticket to anyone under 16 and to check ID's. one of the staff sold a ticket to a 13- year-old boy. However, a defendant can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence. This must be a voluntary act on his part. 1. As such, failure to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 amounts to a criminal offence. Alternatively, the company can be sued under contract law if there is a reward stated on the advert whereby Oliver had performed the specified actions which would automatically be an acceptance. The London Borough of Harrow, the appellants, were (as they still . D1 and D2 were charged with selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16, contrary to s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery etc. These were stated by Lord Scarman to be that. His defence was that he thought the victim was 14 and he had therefore not formed the mens rea. Throughout the Act it then states whether the the strict liability rule applies to the various offences of contempt of court. Net purchases for the month of August were $31,000. In addition to mandatory public signs, concerning the sale of lottery tickets to under 16s, the respondents had other handwritten signs on the counter, on the till and the lottery terminal reminding staff not to sell to under 16s and they regularly reminded the staff orally of their obligation. S.11 (2) stated that if any person offering to supply goods of any description gives, by whatever means, any false indication to the effect that the price at which the goods are offered is equal to or less than a recommended price or the price at which the goods or goods of the same description were previously offered by him or is less than such a price by a specified amount, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence. A boy aged 14 was charged with an offence of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. As a matter of fact, the constable was on duty; but does that fact make the innocent act of the appellant an offence? There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. This leads me to the conclusion that a person is found to be drunk or in a public place or in a highway, within the meaning of those words as used in the section, when he is perceived to be drunk in a public place. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General ofHong Kong (1984) 2 All ER 503, the appellants had been charged with deviating from building work in a material way from the approved plan, contrary to the Hong Kong Building Ordinances. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. Case law 5.2. Facts. 15th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law. Additionally, the Trading Standards is established to preserve a fair market and to uphold consumers rights in order to prevent them from being exploited. He had sat next to a 13 year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with him. The defendant and his employees made the honest mistaken by not realising that he was drunk. 32 terms. Only three common law offences have been held to be ones of strict liability. At the time of the sale the respondent, Dilip Shah, was not in the shop, but was working in the back room and the respondent, Bharti Shah, was not on the premises. At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. The defendants owed a newsagent's . Shah v Shah: CA 10 Apr 2001 - swarb.co.uk If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The defendant knew that she was in the possession of her father, but believed (on reasonable grounds) that she was 18. Prices were not changed in accordance to the sale prices and hence, it was a false description which is a strict liability offence. In each case the publican made a genuine mistake. When the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations interferes with the TDA 1968 and Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it will revoke most of them. (2) Such regulations may in particular impose requirements or restrictions as to, (a) the minimum age of persons to whom or by whom tickets or chances may be sold. So s 13 of the Licensing Act 1872 was held to be a strict liability offence as the defendant could not rely on the defence of mistake. Intrinsic aids Flashcards | Quizlet The defendant was charged with taking an unamrried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father against his will (s55 OAPA 1861). In the case the defendant served a a lottery ticket to a person that was under age. No due diligence defence will be available. I do not think it does. There were no words in the section requiring the defendant to have knowledge that a constable was off duty. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Hence, the company may be liable and be subjected to compensate Oliver. Strict Liability Flashcards by abigail Fairweather | Brainscape