276:
333:
225:
65:
59:
132:
166:
79:
39:
408:
317:
374:
418:
32:
393:
25:
310:
232:
c. 63). The defendant contended that he did not know that his product did not abide by the standards of the
413:
367:
423:
398:
303:
403:
217:
428:
175:
360:
197:
348:
291:
8:
120:
224:
standard and furthermore no requirement of knowledge or suspicion for violations of the
172:
Non-strict liability (mens rea essential) offences so prosecuted on a misunderstanding:-
229:
221:
83:(1842) 9 M&W 378 (re an Act banning beer sellers having on premises liquorice)
185:
110:
344:
287:
213:
387:
146:(1880) 5 QBD 259 (re an Act banning unlicensed care homes admitting lunatics)
103:
95:(1846) 15 M&W 404 (re an Act banning possession of adulterated tobacco)
283:
91:
275:
332:
340:
237:
17:
233:
158:(1888) LR 20 QBD 771 (re Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875)
107:(1866) LR 1 QB 702 (re an Act banning dumping in rivers)
136:(1874) LR 9 QB 494 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872)
124:(1873) LR 8 QB 337 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872)
385:
368:
311:
55:Overview of classes of no mens rea offences:-
33:
260:Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2004, p. 252
109:relatedly "some and possibly all cases of"
375:
361:
318:
304:
40:
26:
170:AC 824 (accidental straying in the hunt)
236:, but the court held that there was no
386:
21:
327:
270:
212:, L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 771 (1888), was an
47:
13:
14:
440:
409:Food safety in the United Kingdom
331:
274:
240:requirement for the violation.
226:Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875
250:
176:notable English mens rea cases
1:
258:Criminal Law, Second Edition.
243:
347:. You can help Knowledge by
290:. You can help Knowledge by
7:
419:High Court of Justice cases
10:
445:
326:
269:
394:English criminal case law
194:
182:
163:
151:
141:
129:
117:
100:
88:
76:
71:Illustrative precedents:-
53:
282:This article related to
66:Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
256:Bonnie, R.J. et al.
216:case decided by the
198:English criminal law
414:1888 in British law
121:Fitzpatrick v Kelly
60:Sherras v De Rutzen
424:English law stubs
356:
355:
299:
298:
230:38 & 39 Vict.
209:Betts v. Armstead
204:
203:
133:Roberts v Egerton
436:
399:1888 in case law
377:
370:
363:
335:
328:
320:
313:
306:
278:
271:
261:
254:
222:strict liability
155:Betts v Armstead
48:Strict liability
42:
35:
28:
19:
18:
444:
443:
439:
438:
437:
435:
434:
433:
404:1888 in England
384:
383:
382:
381:
325:
324:
267:
265:
264:
255:
251:
246:
220:that adopted a
205:
200:
190:
186:Sweet v Parsley
178:
173:
171:
167:Morden v Porter
159:
147:
137:
125:
113:
111:public nuisance
108:
96:
84:
72:
69:
56:
49:
46:
12:
11:
5:
442:
432:
431:
429:Case law stubs
426:
421:
416:
411:
406:
401:
396:
380:
379:
372:
365:
357:
354:
353:
336:
323:
322:
315:
308:
300:
297:
296:
279:
263:
262:
248:
247:
245:
242:
202:
201:
195:
192:
191:
183:
180:
179:
164:
161:
160:
152:
149:
148:
142:
139:
138:
130:
127:
126:
118:
115:
114:
101:
98:
97:
89:
86:
85:
80:A-G v Lockwood
77:
74:
73:
54:
51:
50:
45:
44:
37:
30:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
441:
430:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
389:
378:
373:
371:
366:
364:
359:
358:
352:
350:
346:
343:article is a
342:
337:
334:
330:
329:
321:
316:
314:
309:
307:
302:
301:
295:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
273:
272:
268:
259:
253:
249:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:Queen's Bench
215:
211:
210:
199:
193:
188:
187:
181:
177:
169:
168:
162:
157:
156:
150:
145:
140:
135:
134:
128:
123:
122:
116:
112:
106:
105:
99:
94:
93:
87:
82:
81:
75:
70:
68:
67:
62:
61:
52:
43:
38:
36:
31:
29:
24:
23:
20:
16:
349:expanding it
338:
292:expanding it
281:
266:
257:
252:
208:
207:
206:
184:
165:
154:
153:
143:
131:
119:
104:R v Stephens
102:
90:
78:
64:
63:approved in
58:
57:
15:
284:English law
92:R v Woodrow
388:Categories
244:References
144:R v Bishop
341:case law
238:mens rea
234:statute
214:English
189:AC 132
339:This
286:is a
345:stub
288:stub
196:see
174:see
390::
376:e
369:t
362:v
351:.
319:e
312:t
305:v
294:.
228:(
41:e
34:t
27:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
