harrow lbc v shah case summary harrow lbc v shah case summary
Under a subsection of s 13 in the National Lottery Act 1993 the mens rea was not needed and there were no provisions for a defence of 'due diligence'. 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. For Storkwain this meant proving that they had supplied specified medicinal products not in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. HARROW LBC v SHAH AND SHAH - all due diligence. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required, the offence will be one of strict liability. In Cundy the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person, contrary to s 13 of the Act. liability offences. This subsection does not include any words indicating either that mens rea is required or that it is not, nor does it contain any provision for the defence of 'due diligence'. It involves status offences; that is, offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs. If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. As such, prosecution will no longer have to bias against a senior director or manager and prove that one senior employee is at fault. Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1998); CA, Crim Div (Judge LJ, Sachs, Klevan JJ) 25 Mar . They include offences such as breaches of regulations e.g. Sweet V Parsley 1969 Storkwain 1986 Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah 1999 Quasi-criminal offences B V DPP 2000 Blake 1997 Lim Chin Aik V The Queen 1963 Gammon Hong Kong Ltd V Attorney General Hong Kong Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay news 1979 The company had caused the river water to be polluted and hence, conviction was upheld. Only three common law offences have been held to be ones of strict liability. D had supplied drugs on prescriptions which were later found to be forged. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) The owner of a shop frequently reminded their staff to not sell lottery tickets to people under the age of 16, and put up signs in the shop. There does not seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. National Distributing Company uses a periodic inventory system to track its merchandise inventory and the gross profit method to estimate ending inventory and cost of goods sold for interim periods. I say 'must have been' because it is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.". The company were guilty of allowing oil to escape into a river despite the fact that it happened due to vandalism. 5) Strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance. 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. Advanced A.I. In the c Robert McCracken (Richard Buxton, Cambridge) for the applicant; Neil King (St Edmundsbury Borough Council) for the authority. A firm may be vicariously liable if there is a case of money laundering, tax evasion and manslaughter. In these cases it also had to be proved that the doing of the actus reus was voluntary. D owned a newsagent where lottery tickets were sold. This chapter considers those offences where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus. However, a defendant can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence. Crime. Harrow London v Shah [2000] Smedley's v Breed [1974] Alphacell v Woodward [1972] R v Marriot [1971] Journals. (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. As it is, where there are no express words indicating mens rea or strict liability, the courts have to decide which offences are ones of strict liability. Fault may be removed by a defence Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983. Note that the Law Commission consulted in 2010 on possible reform of the offences of public nuisance and outraging public decency. The corporation may only be personally or directly liable for their own actions by distinguishing the individual with controlling mind. The similar rule was applied to a different statute when Tesco was caught in a subsequent case. Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] AC 160 in which the Privy Council considered Wright J's formulation of the principle in Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918, Lord Scarman identified the issue in the appeal as being "whether the offences charged were offences of strict liability or required proof of mens rea as to their essential facts". I do not think it does. He, believed she was over the age of 14. The company performed $20,000\$20,000$20,000 of services for customers, on credit. The house was in the immediate neighbourhood of the police station, and the appellant believed, and had very natural grounds for believing, that the constable was off duty. In that belief he accordingly served him with liquor. He was acquitted as he didn't know the girl was in the custody of her father, therefore didn't have the mens rea for that aspect. In both these cases the charge against the defendant was that he had taken an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father against his will, contrary to s 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This is because the advertisement was not an offer for sale but was only an Invitation to Treat. The company received $20,000\$20,000$20,000 in cash from customers who had been billed for services c(in transaction 1). The defendant (26) was charged with indecently assaulting a 14 year old girl, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Neither respondent was therefore aware of the transaction. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999. The presumption in favour of mens rea being required before D can be convicted applies to statutory offences and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute. The case of Bolton v Stone 1951 points to a failure to prove breach of care; The defendants had taken reasonable care that damage would not happen (wall) If this case, fault will not be proved and the claimant will have lost their case for damages; Consider also the case of Paris v Stepney LBC 1951; Defences. Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. This was emphasised as long ago as 1970 in the case of. HoL followed B v DPP, and stated that the presumption is that mens rea was required. Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1998); CA, Crim Div (Judge LJ, Sachs, Klevan JJ) 25 Mar 1999. Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in, Please refresh your browser to be logged in, 15% off orders with this Zavvi discount code, 25% off everything with this Red Letter Days discount code, 20 extra entries with this Omaze promo code, 5% off UK Theme Parks using this Attraction Tickets discount code, Up to 10% off Sony Playstation gift cards, Compare broadband packages side by side to find the best deal for you, Compare cheap broadband deals from providers with fastest speed in your area, All you need to know about fibre broadband, Best Apple iPhone Deals in the UK May 2023, Compare iPhone contract deals and get the best offer this May, Compare the best mobile phone deals from the top networks and brands. Subjects | Law Notes | Criminal Law. On. [Related to the Apply the Concept on page 270] An opinion columnist for bloomberg.com observed, A lot of people seem to think that committed, long-term shareholders should get more say than those who can bail out at any moment.. An Invitation to Treat is simply an invitation to people to make an offer. Facts: The company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river, contrary to s2 (1) (a) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, when pumps. The conducts of the senior executives or those employees who are higher up in the hierarchy are recognised by the company. In that case a poem had been published in Gay News describing homosexual acts done to the body of Christ after his crucifixion and also describing his alleged homosexual practices during his lifetime. In strict liability offences there may be no blameworthiness on the part of the defendant. AQA AS La w 239 15 Introduction to criminal liability AQA AS La w 239 liability offences effectively is Harrow LBC v Shah (1999), in which a shopkeeper was convicted of the offence of selling a lottery ticket to a minor child, although he thought, reasonably, that the boy was at least 16 years old. 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! . This was widely understood to mean that the officer was not on duty. He was charged with inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit actts of gross indecency with him, contrary to s1 (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Michael Booth (Tickle Hall Cross) for the plaintiff; Angharad Start (Wilde Sapte) for the bank. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. The defendant was charged with s55 OAPA. Clearly, before any question of criminal liability attaching to the respondents can arise, the contravention must be proved as against their employee, Mr Hobday who, as the Justices found, reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that the purchaser of the ticket was at least 16. No care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under s 16(2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. That means that, whenever a section is silent as to mens rea, there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea it is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary.. change the version number and provide a summary of the changes. This kind of offence is caused quite simply when a person is found drunk in a public place or highway [A]n example illustrates how sensible that conclusion is. In Woodrow this meant proving that he was in possession of the adulterated tobacco. Examples of offences of social concern include driving offences eg R v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588 (case summary) and health and safety regulations. Stephen J said: I am of the opinion that the words of the section amount to an absolute prohibition of the sale of liquor to a drunken person, and that the existence of a bona fide mistake as to the condition of the person served is not an answer to the charge, but is a matter only for mitigation of the penalties that may be imposed.. However, the fact that other sections specifically require mens rea does not mean that the courts will automatically make the offence without express words of mens rea one of strict liability. In Harvey v Facey [1863], giving information was not an offer but was just an indication of the lowest price if he decides to sell. No fault liability encourages higher standards of care amongst business men and property owners for example in the case of (Harrow LBC v Shah) shopkeepers as a result would then take greater care when selling age limited products in the future. 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. The clothing shop may be liable under S.1 of this Act which states that it an offence to apply a false trade description to any goods or supplies or offers to supply any goods to which a false trade description is applied in the course of a trade or business. Recent cases, including the Court of Appeal's judgment in Bou-Simon v BGC Brokers LP and the (as yet unreported) case of Harrow LBC v Engie Regeneration (Apollo) Ltd (2018) (TCC), provide a useful reminder of the strict constraints on implying terms into a commercial contract. Where an Act of Parliament does not include any words indicating mens rea, the judges will start by presuming that all criminal offences require mens rea. Put another way, do these provisions create an offence of strict (or absolute) liability? A case we can look at is Harrow London BC v Shah [2000]. There was no evidence the defendant had acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability. R v St Edmundsbury Borough Council, ex p Watson; QBD, Crown Office List (Hooper J) 13 Apr 1999. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. 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. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994. So where an offence is held to be one of strict liability, the following points apply: . The Gammon Test Case. 82 at p. 90 Lord Diplock returned to the subject. D1 was in a back room of the premises at the time; D2 was not on the premises. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 340 words (1 pages) Case Summary. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. The Law Lords quoted with approval what Lord Reid had said in Sweet v Parsley (see section 4.4.8 for full details of B v DPP). A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. 8 The Gammon tests 1. 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. -like an appendix. These are known as crimes of absolute liability. In Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999], it is a strict liability offence to sell National Lottery tickets to a person under the age of 16 as it is an issue of social concern stated by the Divisional Court. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. The defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Published: 7th Aug 2019. This subsection does not have any provision for a due diligence defence, although s 13(1)(a), which makes the promoter of the lottery guilty, does contain a due diligence defence. 68-1, January 2004. Where other sections allow for a defence of no negligence but another section does not, then this is another possible indicator from within the statute that the offence is meant to be one of strict liability. He understood that if he was in any doubt about the age of the purchaser he should ask for proof of identity and that if still in doubt he should then refer the matter to the respondents or refuse to sell. ", "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable. There is no need to prove mens rea for at least part of the actus reus. This principle has been affirmed by the House of Lords in B (a minor) v DPP (2000) 1 All ER 833 where the House of Lords reviewed the law on strict liability. 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. Some ten years later in the case of. The defendant was arrested for having adulterated tobacco in his possession, however he didn't know that it was. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain the relevant section, s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, was silent on mens rea. The first company to be charged under this act was Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings whereby a junior geologist was killed when pit collapsed while collecting soil samples. Their defence was that this was the fault of the store manager for not checking the shelves properly and it was due to this that the items were advertised at a lower price. The July 31 and August 31, 2018, financial statements contained the following information: Required: It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences. The feminist movement in Psychology was important because it ____________. Thisapproach is likely to continue: Harrow LBC v Shah, v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1but also more recently in Blake [1997] 1 All ER 963; Harrow London BoroughCouncil v Shah, to as public welfare or regulatory offences.15 Pearks, Gunston & Tee Ltd vWard [1902] 2 KB 1 at 11; London Borough of Harrow vShah, vigilance on the part of potential offenders would be promoted(see, for similar arguments, Harrow London Borough Council vShah, This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the. Prepare a tabular analysis which shows the effects of these transactions on the expanded accounting equation, similar to that shown in Illustration 1-8. A . 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. Harrow LBC V Shah 1999. A shop keeper was held liable even though it . They had told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years. Cited by: Cited - Wilson v Truelove ChD 25-Mar-2003 The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act. These are. Privy Council started with the assumption that Mens Rea is required before a person can be guilty of a criminal offence, but went on to give four other factors to be considered: The defendant was charged with serving an on-duty police officer with liquor. If they made clear in all sections which create a criminal offence whether mens rea was required, then there would be no problem. Act 1993 and the relevant Regulations. AN OFFENCE of selling a lottery ticket to a person who had not attained the age of 16 years contrary to s 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and reg 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994 was an offence of strict liability and it was therefore unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that a person charged with such an offence knew or was reckless as to the age of the customer. Robert Denman (Joseph Aaron & Co, Ilford) for the plaintiff; Timothy Fancourt (Collyer-Bristow) for the first defendant; Justin Althaus (Armstrong & Co) for Mr & Mrs Uddin. He understood that if he was in any doubt about the age of the purchaser he should ask for proof of identity and that if still in doubt he should then refer the matter to the respondents or refuse to sell. B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 House of Lords. This legislation will be able to prosecute employers who may be held directly responsible for deaths at work due to gross negligence. 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. The vet assured him that it was all right to eat, and so the butcher offered it for sale. As a result, 190 passengers and crew were killed. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. In this case even the use of an expert (a vet) was insufficient top avoid liability. This was made clear in the case of Sweet v Parsley (1969) 1 All ER 347. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside the hospital. Day J justified his decision in Sherras by pointing to the fact that although s 16(2) did not include the word knowingly, s 16(1) did, for the offence of knowingly harbours or knowingly suffers to remain on his premises any constable during any part of the time appointed for such constable being on duty. ACCEPT, 697 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 635 R v. Blake [1997] 1 All E.R. The salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over 16 years. 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. She was charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis'. However, in many instances a section in an Act of Parliament is silent about the need for mens rea. Citations: [1895] 1 QB 918. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. To be an absolute liability offence, the following conditions must apply: The offence does not require any mens rea. In the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. 2. If they do, then plainly, in order to prove a contravention of regulation 3, all that is required of the prosecution is proof of the sale of a national lottery ticket to a particular person and proof that at the time of the sale that person was under 16. These were stated by Lord Scarman to be that. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? This point was reinforced in Sweet, when Lord Reid stated: It is also firmly established that the fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea, for example because they contain the word knowingly, is not of itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates an absolute offence. Neither the defendant or his daughter made any enquiry as to whether the policeman was on duty. If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for! Frances Webber (Gill & Co) for the appellant; Stuart Catchpole (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary. Looking for a flexible role? It was held that she was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea. . In Tesco v Brent [1974], Tesco was convicted for strict liability offence as to selling videos to under-age children. harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports. ", At page 163 Lord Diplock explained the rationale of the presumption. Truly Criminal - where a crime is truly criminal there is more likely to be a presumption of MR. The company received a bill for $2,300\$2,300$2,300 of advertising but will not pay it until a later date. In Hibbert the defendant met a girl aged 14 on the street. 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. Strict liability is very rare in common law offences. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. required is strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. indecency carried a maximum penalty of two tears imprisonment. Outraging public decency was held to be an offence of strict liability in Gibson and Sylveire (1991) 1 All ER 439 since it does not have to be proved that the defendant intended to or was reckless that his conduct would have the effect of outraging public decency. The other case is Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983; Co/1111/82 (Lexis), QBD. Throughout the Act it then states whether the the strict liability rule applies to the various offences of contempt of court. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. The prosecution has to prove that an individual was responsible and he or she played the role of the controlling mind. Sheppard & Ors (1981) 72 Cr.App.R. guns are regarded as matters of public safety. The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability. Determining whether Parliament has created an offence of strict liability involves rather more than applying a particular test, or working through a list of clearly and closely defined criteria. The officer was not wearing his armlet at the time. In the case the defendant served a a lottery ticket to a person that was under age. She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police deported her and took her in police custody back to the United Kingdom, where she was put in a cell in Holyhead police station. He had met the girl (14) on the street and taken her to another place where they had sex. This was upheld in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1983] concerning unilateral contract. The surprising fact is that about half of all statutory offences are strict liability. F v Harrow LBC JR/557/2017 - Age assessment judicial review . In general, the Courts will give a ruling after considering all the actions of the employees in a corporation. The question set out in paragraph 8 of the Case is this: "whether an offence contrary to Regulation 3 of the National Lottery Regulations 1994 and Section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant or his agent was aware of the buyer's age, or was reckless as to his age.". First, whereas in subsection (1) paragraphs (a) and (b) the liability of the promoter and the promoter's, directors, managers and the like is tempered by the provision of a statutory defence, in subsection (1)(c) the liability of 'any other person' who was a party to the contravention of the regulation is not expressed to be subject to a statutory defence. 61 terms. 53 terms. The wording of the Act - where the word has no indication of no MR, there is the presumption it is not SL. The previous chapter explained the different types of mens rea. This idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated by two cases, Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 and Hibbert (1869) LR 1 CCR 184. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. As such, failure to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 amounts to a criminal offence. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! IF A local planning authority wished to delegate to a planning officer the authority to make a decision under reg 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 to the effect that an applicant for planning permission which fell within Sch 2 of the regulations need not submit an environmental statement, such a delegation had to be formally made under s 101 of the Local Government Act 1992. The clothing shop may also be held liable under both of this 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 report is due out but had not been published at the time of writing the text. He had become drunk, and in order to have been taken to hospital must have either been in a public place when the ambulance collected him and took him to hospital, or he must have summoned medical assistance when he was not ill but only drunk. The problem lies in deciding which offences are ones of strict liability. -punctuation helps create meaning - lack of it can be a problem. Callow v Tillstone 1900. 44 terms. The police found cannabis there. This is so for both common law and statutory offences. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Ben_Snaith. The defendant assumed that he was not on duty.
Westminster Coroners Court Diary,
Crescenta Valley High School Tennis Coach,
Motorcycle Accident El Paso, Texas Yesterday,
Eleanor Roosevelt Children's Problems,
Holly Springs Greenway,
Articles H