Strict Liability Vs Absolute Liability (1 Viewer)

[melsc]

I am a little bit confused about the difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability. I know that Stict Liablity offences do not require the element of mens rea...but my book says ABSOLUTE LIABILTY IS PROOF OF THE ACT ONLY which sounds the same to me...(page 75 Heinmann txtbook 4 u playing at home) Is it that Strict Liability means it doesnt matter if u intended to or not (ie no mens rea) and absolute means they dont have proof of mens rea???Can someone clear this up 4 me??? thnx!

 

[c_james]

In offences involving strict liability, the accused stating that there was a mistake of fact is a valid defence. In crimes with absolute liability, no defence exists. Yes, the Heinemann textbook sucks.

 

[Jonathan A]

Strict Liability is applicable in torts as well as criminal law.

As a criminal law offence it is a crime in which Mens Rea need not be proven in order for conviction. However there is a common law defence of the accussed making an honest and reasonable mistake. A case for this is in relation to dangerous driving - Jiminez v R 173 CLR 572

An absolute liability offence again is an offence by where the act alone need be proven. The only main defences here are that the act was not voluntary.


Both are also referred to as regulatory offences most of the time, these are in the moral sense also referred to as Mala Prohibita Offences. Mala Prohibita means the crime is in relation to regulation, it is not a crime which is legislated against because it's morally wrong (such crimes are Mala In Se e.g. murder).

 

[melsc]

thankyou i was so lost

 

[Jonathan A]

thankyou i was so lost

lol that's ok, the criminal law textbooks aren't that much help either at times.

 

[melsc]

My friend asked me...and I knew strict liablity from Mock Trial...so i got the book out and i was like...the way the book describes it makes it sound like it is exactly the same thing...I was like where is Jonathan wen u need him LOL

 

[Jonathan A]

My friend asked me...and I knew strict liablity from Mock Trial...so i got the book out and i was like...the way the book describes it makes it sound like it is exactly the same thing...I was like where is Jonathan wen u need him LOL

LOL

Strict Liability is commonly referred to, but Absolute Liability is sort of the same thing in its category, only the issue of defences as c_james rightly pointed out.

Don't you just hate that book though? I had McMillain, the one with the glued pictures of Gleeson CJ.

 

[melsc]

Its alright but i'd prefer the Legal Handbook...

Did u read the article abt becomming a barrister oh my god...ah well it will be worth it in the end

 

[Jonathan A]

Its alright but i'd prefer the Legal Handbook...

Did u read the article abt becomming a barrister oh my god...ah well it will be worth it in the end

Might of, was this in the text?

I read about becomming a barrister from the Bar requirements, plus this might interest you, if you go to UWS (most unis should do this), they have barristers who come out and talk to law students about how to get on the bar, I might go to the one next month.

The Law Handbook is the quasi-bible, it's great.

 

[melsc]

got the link

Sorry i didnt explain myself it was in the law section of BOS http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=64545

The law handbook explains things so clearly...i love it

 

[Jonathan A]

Sorry i didnt explain myself it was in the law section of BOS http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=64545

The law handbook explains things so clearly...i love it

Cheers.

Yes it is a mountain to climb. $200 isn't that bad, seeing the DipLaw exams are $75 each. But the title and prestige associated with the bar is worth the effort. It makes me shiver a little seeing I want to get on the bar asap.

 

[melsc]

Ditto and i am still in high skool

 

[Jonathan A]

Ditto and i am still in high skool

Ahh I have always wanted to be on the bar. Dreams can come true.