Strict Liability
An offence that does not require proof of mens rea for one or more elements of the actus reus. Common in regulatory offences (e.g., selling alcohol to under-18s). Presumption of mens rea can be rebutted (Gammon v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985]).
Independent editorial summary — not the official statute text. Read the official version on legislation.gov.uk.
English criminal law starts from a presumption that a guilty mind is required for a conviction. CPS guidance on prison-related offences, discussing R v B and M, confirms that there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be found guilty of a criminal offence, and the presumption applies to statutory offences.
That presumption can be displaced, but only in limited circumstances. The same guidance explains that the presumption can only be displaced where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, such as public safety — which is why strict liability offences, dispensing with proof of mens rea for one or more elements, are concentrated in regulatory areas like road traffic, licensing, food safety and other fields where protecting the public is treated as an overriding statutory purpose.
Related terms
Official sources
This explanation is drawn from the official sources below; every substantive statement is verified against them. For advice on a specific matter, see our find help page.