Strictly liability are those offences were by a person is held liable or criminal responsible for his/her acts though

no mens rea (state of mind). Were by a person may be liable only on the strength of the actus reus without the presence of the mens rea. The following are the features of strictly liability which make it different from other criminal offence. Mens rea in not required to convict someone in strictly liability, only actus reus in needed to convict someone in strictly liability and this occurs when is difficult to prove the intention to commit the offence, whether honestly done or not, and here mens rea means a state of mind during the time of committing the offence. Only actus reus is need in strictly liability. As a general rule any offence should comprise two elements, which are actus reus and mens rea. as provided above strictly liability does not require mens rea but rather requires only actus reus which means a prohibited act, therefore when a person do an act which is prohibited or omits do then he can be convicted even if no mens rea proved. Saying no mens rea does not mean involuntary, the act should be voluntary done to convict a person with strictly liability. for example by referring the case of Joseph Harkworth V R.1 were they entered into Tanganyika voluntary and not involuntary therefore they were convicted by using strictly liability, although there are some rarely case which the act is involuntary but Strictly liability offences generally needs the act to be voluntary committed. The defence of mistake is immaterial in the case of strictly liability, that means that in the strictly liability case you cannot rise a defense of mistake, that you did the offence only by mistake Considering strictly liability to be a principle which justifies the punishment of those not in fault it is not only not right but also unfair because the main aims of using strictly liability is to deal with offence which its mens rea is difficulty to prove but not to convict those who are not in fault, and how comes a person commit something prohibited and be not in fault? He/she should
1

(1970) H. C. D No. 27,

reason properly before doing anything as a reasonable person. Consider the followings, If mens rea were to be proved many people would escape to be convicted due to the lack of evidence, for example when a person commit a traffic offence, may be by not following the road signs he can just say he did not see it clearly and there is no evidence to prove that he saw the road sign clearly or not, what shall the court do? The only way is to impose strictly liability Also strictly liability aims on protecting the society, where by the good sense of the court is to pressurize upon the thoughtless an inefficient to do their whole duty in the interest of public health, safety and moral, that means if strictly liability was to be removed the society would be in danger especially in the issue of public nuisance and criminal libel which general does not require mens rea, also the issue of blasphemous libel, referring the case of Lemon and Whitehouse V Gay news2, when a poem had been published describing homosexual acts done to the body of Christ after his crucifixion, the law lords held that it was not necessary to prove that the defends intended to blaspheme. Although generally, strictly liability is just, but there some few reforms when taken will make strictly liability more just, some of those reforms are; It must consider blameworthy, if no blameworthy, the person should not be convicted by this principle, and this is so as to protect people who are honestly not guilty of the offence Also it should not convict people who took possible care to prevent the action from happening, for example if a person commits a public nuisance but he took all possible cares to prevent it from happening or from affecting the public then the court should not convict that person by using strictly liability. Therefore the court should continue using strictly liability because it protects the people. And the primary function of laws is to harmonize situation in the community, but it should be honestly applied and also improve its standard in relation to the change of public policy.
2

(1979) 1 ALL ER 898