Abstract
The imposition of strict criminal liability is often controversial. This article first revisits the important functions of mens rea and establishes that imposing strict liability is prima facie unfair. This article then turns to explore arguments in favour of imposing strict liability, and evaluates whether these arguments are convincing. After establishing that displacing the requirement for the prosecution to prove mens rea can be justified in some circumstances, this article explores different alternatives that allow a balance to be struck between achieving the purpose of criminalisation and minimising the infringement of the presumption of innocence. Through a comparative analysis, it is suggested that enabling a halfway house defence through statutory construction by the courts would be valuable.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call