³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related practice notes about Strict liability

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...

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements This Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed. For guidance on: • non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements • asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—asymmetric jurisdiction agreements What is an exclusive jurisdiction clause? An exclusive jurisdiction clause or agreement, provides for the courts in a specified jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties; it creates a contractual right not to be sued elsewhere. A number of exclusive jurisdiction clauses also include forum non conveniens waivers, ie the parties irrevocably waiver any right to bringing proceedings in a jurisdiction other than that stipulated in the jurisdiction clause. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses differ from non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in that they exclude the rights of the parties to commence proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that provided for in the jurisdiction clause. For example exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice...

View the related precedents about Strict liability

Financial sanctions policy

Financial sanctions policy 1 Introduction This financial sanctions policy sets out the procedures we have developed to comply with financial sanctions requirements made under the UK sanctions regime that apply to our business[ across every jurisdiction in which we operate]. 2 What are financial sanctions? 2.1 Financial sanctions are non-permanent international restrictions aimed at: 2.1.1 encouraging a change in the behaviour of a particular country or regime; 2.1.2 applying pressure on particular countries or regimes to comply with certain objectives; 2.1.3 preventing and suppressing terrorist financing. 2.2 Financial sanctions are also used as a last resort enforcement tool when international peace and security has been threatened. 2.3 Financial sanctions restrict dealings in money and the provision of financial services—they can include the prohibition of funds transfers to and from certain countries, individuals or entities. 2.4 They are designed to have an adverse impact on persons (individuals or corporate entities) that are designated or (for some sanctions) connected with a prescribed country, in a number of different...

View the related q&as about Strict liability

Are offences in section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 recordable offences in line with the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, SI 200/1139? If so, at what point are they recordable for the purpose of inserting/logging on the Police National Computer?

Are offences in section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 recordable offences in line with the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, SI 200/1139? If so, at what point are they recordable for the purpose of inserting/logging on the Police National Computer? The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1139, reg 3 provides that details of convictions, cautions, and arrests will be recorded in national police records if it concerns any offences punishable with imprisonment or if it concerns offences listed in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1139, Sch. See Commentary: Recordable offences: Halsbury's Laws of England [65]. The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, 2000, SI 2000/1139, Sch does not

How does the JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 address liability under the Defective Premises Act 1972?

How does the JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 address liability under the Defective Premises Act 1972? The Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) imposes statutory duties on parties providing works and services in relation to dwellings (ie residential properties). Specifically, under DPA 1972, a person who takes on work: • for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling (DPA 1972, s 1(1)), or • in relation to a building containing one or more dwellings (DPA 1972, s 2A), owes a duty to ensure that the work is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, and with proper materials, so that on completion of the work the dwelling is ‘fit for habitation’. The persons who owe these duties (ie, those taking on the works) include contractors, designers and property developers providing works and services in relations to dwellings. The parties to whom the duties are owed include those with legal or equitable interests in the affected dwellings, such as purchasers or...

View the related News about Strict liability

Sentencing health and safety offences (R v Nestle UK)

Corporate Crime analysis: The defendant applied for permission to appeal a fine of £640,000 following a guilty plea to one count of failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, contrary to regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998) and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). Permission to appeal was sought on three potential grounds: (1) whether the offender’s breach was a significant cause of actual harm; (2) the discount for guilty plea; and (3) whether a strict liability offence under the regulations should attract a lesser fine than a fine imposed for a breach of HSWA 1974. The application was refused: (1) the judge was entitled to uplift for actual harm; (2) the discount of 20% for guilty plea was not arguably wrong; (3) strict liability was only relevant to the issue of culpability. Written by Fiona Canby, barrister at Temple Garden Chambers.