| Strict liability | |
|---|---|
| Overview of classes of no mens rea offences:- Sherras v De Rutzen approved in Alphacell Ltd v Woodward | |
| A-G v Lockwood (1842) 9 M&W 378 (re an Act banning beer sellers having on premises liquorice) | |
| R v Woodrow (1846) 15 M&W 404 (re an Act banning possession of adulterated tobacco) | |
| R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702 (re an Act banning dumping in rivers) relatedly "some and possibly all cases of" public nuisance | |
| Fitzpatrick v Kelly (1873) LR 8 QB 337 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872) | |
| Roberts v Egerton (1874) LR 9 QB 494 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872) | |
| R v Bishop (1880) 5 QBD 259 (re an Act banning unlicensed care homes admitting lunatics) | |
| Betts v Armstead (1888) LR 20 QBD 771 (re Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875) | |
| Morden v Porter AC 824 (accidental straying in the hunt) Non-strict liability (mens rea essential) offences so prosecuted on a misunderstanding:- see notable English mens rea cases | |
| Sweet v Parsley AC 132 | |
| see English criminal law |
Cundy v Le Cocq is an 1884 case in English law concerned with an offence of the Licensing Act 1872, deemed a key one which comes with strict liability.
The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under the Licensing Act. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The court held that knowledge was irrelevant - the question was whether a reasonable dispenser of the last drink sold would have realised the customer was clearly intoxicated.
References
- "Help With Your Law Essay and Law Dissertation - Law Resources and Custom Essays - Law Teacher . Net-". www.lawteacher.net. Archived from the original on 26 September 2009.
- Cases on Criminal Law. CUP Archive. 1964. p. 185. Retrieved 27 December 2017.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |