Strict liability Definition

See All Glossary Terms

Related Glossary Terms

GLOSSARY

What does Strict liability mean?

An offence is one of strict liability if it does not require proof of mens rea in respect of one or more elements of the actus reus.

Some offences, principally ones arising under regulatory legislation, do not require proof of mens rea. The starting point or presumption is that where Parliament has not made it clear that strict liability is intended it did not mean to punish blameless conduct and therefore words importing mens rea must be read into the statute. However, the danger which the legislation seeks to guard against may be of such importance that strict liability is required to promote its objects.

View the related checklists about Strict liability

International supply of goods—checklist

International supply of goods—checklist This Checklist considers how to identify international contracts for the supply of goods and how international contracts for the supply of goods can create more considerations than the domestic supply of goods. The Checklist then sets out a series of considerations when drafting and entering into international contracts for the supply of goods, including issues such as credit rating, carriage of goods (or shipping), international trade terms (including Incoterms®), payment, trade finance, currency, exchange controls, import and export restrictions, intellectual property, force majeure, insurance, language, product liability, notices, governing law, jurisdiction, and trade with the EU. The Checklist is drafted practically from the perspective of an in-house lawyer. Identifying international contracts Does your business know how to identify an international contract, or even what an international contract is? Knowing how to spot an international contract is important for two reasons: • this will shape your involvement as the in-house lawyer—is this a contract you can advise on or do you need to seek external advice? If...

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent tax evasion—checklist

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent tax evasion—checklist This Checklist explains the issues which should be considered when advising on and undertaking an internal investigation into whether the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion has occurred. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion—the offences and Self-reporting corporate offences as well as the Failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion toolkit. Initial considerations Oversight The top-level management of an organisation should be committed to preventing persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with it from engaging in criminal facilitation of tax evasion. They should foster a culture within the organisation in which tax evasion facilitation is never acceptable. Consider: • has the company appointed an officer of sufficient seniority responsible for compliance and oversight of the company’s risk assessment, and policies and procedures in respect of preventing the facilitation of tax evasion? Internal reporting/whistleblowing An important aspect of...

Strict liability

Strict liability applies to offences for which the prosecution is not required to prove mens rea for one or more elements of the offence. What the defendant knew, believed, or intended is unlikely to be relevant. Guilt can therefore be established by the commission of an act regardless of mindset.Strict liability runs against the presumption that criminal offences require proof of both actus reus and mens rea. Wright J in Sherras v De Rutzen stated:‘There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.’Strict liability is generally intended to regulate conduct that is particularly harmful to society. Societal protection overrides the presumption that the prosecution must prove mens rea.Strict liability offences focus more on factual consequences than the mindset of the accused. This...

Getting the Deal Through: Aviation Finance & Leasing 2023

Getting the Deal Through: Aviation Finance & Leasing 2023 Jurisdictions covered The following jurisdictions are covered in this report: Austria; Belgium; Brazil; British Virgin Islands; Canada; Egypt; Germany; India; Indonesia; Israel; Italy; Japan; Latvia; Lithuania; Malta; Netherlands; Nigeria; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom - England & Wales; USA Questions The set of questions relating to the topic of Aviation Finance & Leasing and answered by the guide for each jurisdiction covered include: • To which major air law treaties is your state a party? • What is the principal domestic legislation applicable to aviation finance and leasing? • Are there any restrictions on choice-of-law clauses in contracts to the transfer of interests in or creation of security over aircraft? If parties are not free to specify the applicable law, is the law of the place where the aircraft is located or where it is registered the relevant applicable law? • How is title in an aircraft transferred? • What are the formalities for...

Discover our 262 Practice Notes on Strict liability

Ireland—Legal opinion letter: Irish borrower entering into an unsecured bilateral facility agreement

Legal opinion It is common practice to use legal opinions in the vast majority of finance transactions. They provide the addressee of the legal opinion with information as to matters of law that relate to a particular transaction. A legal opinion expresses legal conclusions in relation to a particular transaction and would not usually provide reasons or discuss legal arguments. The opinion will generally not be given on questions of fact. Law firms will need to give careful consideration where an opinion is requested to matters of mixed fact and law. An example of this involves execution of documents. It is a legal matter whether, if a document is executed on behalf of an Irish company by an authorised officer, it has been validly executed. It is a factual question whether the document has actually been signed by a person authorised to do so. It will often be more appropriate to deal with factual matters through assumptions in the opinion letter or, where relevant, through warranties being given by one...

Ireland—Legal opinion letter: Irish borrower entering into a secured bilateral facility agreement

Dive into our 4 Precedents related to Strict liability

What obligations does an occupier of land have to a neighbour where Japanese knotweed has spread from their land to neighbouring land?

What obligations does an occupier of land have to a neighbour where Japanese knotweed has spread from their land to neighbouring land? An occupier of land could face liability for the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land in a number of ways, including: • under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981), which makes it an offence to plant or cause Japanese knotweed to grow • under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which imposes a duty of care on people dealing with controlled waste (Japanese knotweed), to take reasonable steps to keep that waste safe • through a claim for private for private nuisance For more information, see Practice Notes: Japanese knotweed—legal framework and Japanese knotweed—management, which also cover the amendments to the WCA 1981, added by the Infrastructure Act 2015, concerning Japanese knotweed and species control agreements and orders. Private nuisance This Q&A concerns the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land and so it involves a focus...

Can a law firm be liable to its client in a transaction where a loss is sustained through currency fluctuation?

Can a law firm be liable to its client in a transaction where a loss is sustained through currency fluctuation? This Q&A answers the following questions: • can a firm be liable to its client in a transaction where a loss is sustained through currency fluctuation arising from the firm’s delay? • what is the firm’s potential liability in: ◦ negligence, or ◦ breach of contract (under any relevant implied terms) • what if the loss arises out of a delay for which the firm is not responsible, eg delay on the part of the client or other party? • what if there is no delay to the transaction, but there is a currency fluctuation causing loss during the expected/normal transaction duration period? • can a firm limit its liability for claims arising out of the above scenarios eg through a clause in its Terms of Business? Practitioners encounter this kind of uncertainty and risk on a fairly regular basis, eg the Greek government debt crisis...

See the 38 Q&As about Strict liability

Court of Appeal clarifies law on state of mind necessary for breach of confidence (Kieron Corrigan & Co Ltd v Bashir Timol)

Information Law analysis: The Court of Appeal has handed down one of the first breach of confidence judgments since the Supreme Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed. While this decision does not meaningfully consider Lifestyle Equities (indeed, the appellant conceded on one of its grounds of appeal due to that judgment), it provides further clarification on the scope of the primary liability of agents or employees of corporate entities in breach of confidence proceedings. It further considers the state of mind which the claimant must establish to have been held by the defendant to sustain a breach of confidence allegation. The judgment also considers and provides guidance for how to deal with documents disclosed late in proceedings (in this case, after a trial on liability and during disclosure as to quantum), and particularly on whether to provide for a retrial in light of such evidence. Written by Mark Nichols, senior associate at Potter Clarkson LLP.

OFSI boss promises tougher fines for sanctions breaches

Law360, London: The head of the UK sanctions watchdog told MPs on 26 November 2024 to expect more fines with tougher penalties for breaches of financial restrictions to be imposed on oligarchs in the coming months as he admitted that the crackdown has been slower than hoped.

Read the latest 316 News articles on Strict liability

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"It really is saving us a huge number of hours over the days, weeks and months. Having more relevant support at hand, not having to draft or review documents them from scratch - it all adds up."

Southampton FC

Access all documents on Strict liability

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

UU��ֱ��

GLOSSARY