the reasons for strict liability.

One reason for having strict liability is arguably for public protection and so that
someone can be convicted if their actions unintentionally cause a prohibited
consequence. In some cases the defendant is blameless. In Callow v Tillstone 1900
the issue was the protection of the public against the selling of unfit food. A butcher was
convicted of selling meat which was unfit for human consumption, even though the
butcher had taken the advice of a vet who had declared the meat to be fit.  Food safety
remains a priority and the apparent harshness of this and other decisions is reflected in
food safety legislation in operation today.

In Smedleys v Breed 1974, for example, the manufacturer was convicted of selling
unfit food and the House of Lords confirmed this. The subject matter being four tins of
peas which contained caterpillars.  The fact that millions of tins will have been produced
without contamination was considered irrelevant.

Lord Salmon had no doubts about the merits of strict liability in the river pollution case of
Alphacell v Woodward (1972).  The company’s plea of ignorance about the
obstruction causing the pollution held no sway with Lord Salmon who spoke of the risk
of pollution going unpunished and undeterred in the absence of strict liability.

The principle of public protection runs like a common thread through a range of topics
from such things as the protection of the countryside, unlawful weapons through to
dangerous drugs. The argument that 'It is better to be safe than sorry' seems to be a
strong one and has been adopted in numerous pieces of regulatory legislation
supported by strict liability.

It can also be argued that strict liability is easier to prove than offences requiring the
prosecution to establish mens rea. This may seem harsh to individuals but it could be
said to be justifiable in many cases on the basis of the greater good i.e. the protection of
the public at large. Strict liability saves valuable court time as well as the costs of
representation as generally speaking cases are dealt with in a shorter space of time.

There are some strict liability offences which are said to give rise to ‘absolute’ liability. 
In these situations it is enough that the individual finds themselves in the situation that
they are in, in other words they are ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’.  The case
of Larsonneur 1933 is a good example of this ‘absolute’ liability or ‘state of affairs’
form of offence.