严格责任犯罪毕业论文外文翻译.pdfVIP

附件一：英文文献 INTRODUCTION Offences of strict liability are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus. The defendant need not have intended or known about that circumstance or consequence. Liability is said to be strict with regard to that element. For a good example see: R v Prince[1875] ：The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. He was charged with an offence of taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. It was held that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. It was sufficient to show that the defendant intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father. It is only in extreme and rare cases where no mens rea is required for liability, thereby making the particular offence absolute. GENERAL PRINCIPLES The vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory offences. However, statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict liability. Where a statute uses terms such as knowingly or recklessly then the offence being created is one that requires mens rea. Alternatively, it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being created. In manycases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or not. What factors are taken into account by the courts when assessing whether or not an offence falls into the category of strict liability offences? THE MODERN CRITERIA In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984], the Privy Council considered the scope and role of strict li