Is the imposition of strict liability ever justifiable in criminal law?
… those who cause harm due to carelessness, negligence or even an accident’. This approach appears to be stringent. One might be inclined to suggest that accident is part of human nature, and in applying strict liability to even the most honest mistakes, a satisfactory outcome may not be achieved. One example of this is found in Smedleys v Breed (1974). The defendants were convicted under the Food and Drugs act 1955, after a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Despite the fact that individual inspection of each pea would not have prevented the offence being committed, Lord Hailsham defended the imposition of strict liability on the grounds that- ‘…to construe the Food and Drugs Act 1955 in a sense less strict….would make a serious inroad on the legislation for consumer protection.’ (Elliot and Quinn, p.36) Since they had taken all reasonable and practical precautions, it would appear that this ruling is …
