harrow lbc v shah case summary

Harrow London v Shah [2000] Smedley's v Breed [1974] Alphacell v Woodward [1972] R v Marriot [1971] Journals. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. At the time of the making of the sale Mr Hobday reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that the boy was at least sixteen years old. Fault may be removed by a defence The supermarket was charged with giving an indication that goods were on sale at a lower price than they were in fact. Mark Batchelor (Asst Director of Trading Standards, London Borough of Harrow) for the appellant; Milan Dulovic (Shah & Burke) for the respondents. The defendant (26) was charged with indecently assaulting a 14 year old girl, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The following two cases demonstrate this. 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. 32 terms. Frances Webber (Gill & Co) for the appellant; Stuart Catchpole (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary. ", In 1984 in the Privy Council case of Gammon Limited v. Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 10, having reviewed the speeches in Sweet v. Parsley and. It was in fact unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unfit meat for sale. 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. STRICT LIABILITY SUMMARY. Absolute liability means that no mens rea at all is required for the offence. 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. Callow v Tillstone 1900. 3. In that belief he accordingly served him with liquor. MR M DULOVIC (instructed by the London Borough of Brent and Harrow, London, NW2) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 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.". Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302. In contrast it was held in Sherras v De Rutzen that s 16 of the Licensing Act 1872 did not impose strict liability. B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 House of Lords. It involves status offences; that is, offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability. The company performed $20,000\$20,000$20,000 of services for customers, on credit. 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. In the absence of a clear intention 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.. Facts: D was a DJ who was convicted of using a station fore wireless telegraphy, without a license contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. [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.. Day J held this only had the effect of shifting the burden of proof. 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 order to decide whether an offence is one of strict liability, the courts start by assuming that mens rea is required, but they are prepared to interpret the offence as one of strict liability if Parliament has expressly or by implication indicated this in the relevant statute. seem, however, to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a due diligence defence and when it does not. The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. AQA GCSE Law cases. Cases. Task Look at the following cases, give brief outline of the case and explain they key points. This is because the advertisement was not an offer for sale but was only an Invitation to Treat. Harrow LBC V Shah 1999. 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. 53 terms. Additionally, the Trading Standards is established to preserve a fair market and to uphold consumers rights in order to prevent them from being exploited. HoL followed B v DPP, and stated that the presumption is that mens rea was required. Ben_Snaith. S13 (1) (a) clearly allows a defence of due, diligence so this meant that the Act was one where the offences were strict, In Gammon (1984) the Privy Council stated that the presumption that mens rea is. There was no evidence the defendant had acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. As already stated, the actus reus must be proved and the defendants conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary. Prices were not changed in accordance to the sale prices and hence, it was a false description which is a strict liability offence. The sociological and political context was one of increased strain on police resources and widespread problems with the police Associative Discrimination and Equality Act. 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. She had no mens rea. Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132 . Ben_Snaith. However, if a man in a restaurant made a thorough nuisance of himself, was asked to leave, objected and was ejected, in those circumstances he would not be in a public place of his own volition because he would have been put there It would be nonsense if one were to say that the man who responded to the plea to leave could be said to be found drunk in a public place or in a highway, whereas the man who had been compelled to leave could not. In addition there were clear notices up in the shop about the rules, and staff were frequently reminded that they must not sell lottery tickets to underage customers. Regulatory offences also referred to as quasi-crimes are thought to be strict. Oliver can complain to the Trading Standards Officer regarding his problem of finding a single item at sale prices so that necessary actions can be taken against the shop. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required, the offence will be one of strict liability. 2) The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly the effect of the words of the statute. To be an absolute liability offence, the following conditions must apply: The offence does not require any mens rea. 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. Landlord and tenant; whether poor soundproofing amounted to breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Sheppard & Ors (1981) 72 Cr.App.R. For this the courts will start with presuming that mens rea should apply. In summary what did Roscoe Pound say when explaining the need for statutory offences of strict liability? A case we can look at is Harrow London BC v Shah [2000]. ACCEPT, 697 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 635 R v. Blake [1997] 1 All E.R. This chapter considers those offences where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The judge, Parke B, ruled that he was guilty even if a nice chemical analysis was needed to discover that the tobacco was adulterated. The starting point in each case is always the samenamely, there is a presumption that included in the ingredients of the offence under consideration is the element of, This was emphasised as long ago as 1970 in the case of, "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that, It is also firmly established that the fact that other sections of the Act expressly require. harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. For new statutory offences, a due diligence defence is more often provided. The Divisional Court held the offence to be one of strict liability. (See section 1.2.3.). P and O escaped liability because the controlling mind could not be identified and hence, no director was held responsible for the event. The defendant was taken on a stretcher to hospital, but upon examination he was found to be drunk not ill. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. Strict liability is very rare in common law offences. He had no intention to do a wrongful act; he acted in the bona fide belief that the constable was off duty. Robert McCracken (Richard Buxton, Cambridge) for the applicant; Neil King (St Edmundsbury Borough Council) for the authority. The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside the hospital. See Alphacell v Woodward and Callow v Tillstone above. 11 terms. If the particular section is silent on the point, then the courts will look at other sections in the Act. In the Divisional Court Goff LJ justified the conviction: [L]ooking at the purpose of this particular offence, it is designed to deal with the nuisance which can be caused by persons who are drunk in a public place. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. In both cases the sections in the Licensing Act 1872 were expressed in similar words. The July 31 and August 31, 2018, financial statements contained the following information: Required: The defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. The defendants owed a newsagent's . 1. 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. Also, Joses Apparel Ltd. could be liable under S.11 (2) TDA 1968 for displaying a misleading price notice. 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. The defendant, as in Woodrow, is guilty simply because he has done a prohibited act. schedules. It states: ROBBERY, BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES IN THE THEFT ACTS, Arbitration of International Business Disputes, Brownlies Principles of Public International Law, Health and Human Rights in a Changing World, he Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free_ Laws for the Internet Age, International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication, International Maritime Conventions (Volume 3), International Sales Law A Guide to the CISG, Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect, Research on Selected China's Legal Issues of E-Business, Serving the Rule of International Maritime Law, Stephen Cretney-Family Law in the Twentieth Century_ A History-Oxford University Press (2003), The Impact of Corruption on International Commercial Contracts, Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, Trade Policy between Law Diplomacy and Scholarship. Strict Liability Cases. Give the cases and the area of law for no fault liability. If employees under the corporate hierarchy have behaved unethically, the firm may also be subjected to criminal law. Info: 1492 words (6 pages) Essay 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 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. Prepare a tabular analysis which shows the effects of these transactions on the expanded accounting equation, similar to that shown in Illustration 1-8. The Divisional Court held that the offence did not require any mens rea. The facts were that local police when on duty wore an armband on their uniform. However, the magistrate held that the offence was complete on proof that a sale had taken place and that the person served was drunk and convicted the defendant. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character. guns are regarded as matters of public safety. Summary. In this case even the use of an expert (a vet) was insufficient top avoid liability. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. So, again, the court has to look at other sections of the Act to find out if it is an, offence of strict liability. HARROW LBC v SHAH AND SHAH - all due diligence. The previous chapter explained the different types of mens rea. Neither respondent was therefore aware of the transaction. The police found cannabis there. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Where the particular offence has no words of intention, but other sections in the Act do, then it is likely that this offence is a strict liability offence. D had supplied drugs on prescriptions which were later found to be forged. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain the relevant section, s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, was silent on mens rea. Published: 7th Aug 2019. 340 words (1 pages) Case Summary. 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. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. 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. broadcasting. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for! The company were convicted of causing a river to be polluted despite having pumps and employed someone to ensure the river was not polluted.`, Empress Car Co. v National Rivers Authority (1998). Corporate legal persons (companies and limited liability partnerships LLPs) can be held responsible for unlawful omissions. Fatal Offences: Cases. Put another way, do these provisions create an offence of strict (or absolute) liability? The similar rule was applied to a different statute when Tesco was caught in a subsequent case. example of words and punctuation. Advanced A.I. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. He, believed she was over the age of 14. The concept of strict liability appears to contradict the basis of criminal law. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. The prosecution has to prove that an individual was responsible and he or she played the role of the controlling mind. A mother was found guilty of failing to secure school attendance for her child. Michael Booth (Tickle Hall Cross) for the plaintiff; Angharad Start (Wilde Sapte) for the bank. The defendant supplied drugs to somebody who was using a forged prescription, they were charged under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 for supplying drugs without a doctors prescription. Bland v Ingram's Estates Ltd and ors; Ch D (Peter Leaver QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge) 13 Apr 1999. At page 149 Lord Reid said this: "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary. Nearly all strict liability offences have been created by statute. It is not known how Winzar came to be taken to the hospital on a stretcher, but commentators on this case point out that there may be an element of fault in Winzars conduct. The salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over 16 years. A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. They allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the magistrates to continue the hearing. 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.".

Collagen Dressing Advantages And Disadvantages, Articles H