Q.
In simple words, describe strict liability. What is the one key significant difference strict liability is compared to ordinary negligence?
What are the presumptions that mens rea would not be required?
A.
Advantages and disadvantages of strict liability go here. Elements of strict liability go here.
An offense of strict liability is one where the element of mens rea (proof of blame) is not required.
This is different from ordinary negligence where liability is proven by negligence arising from a duty of care. This negligence results in an offence.
It is emphasized that strict liability offences are which do not require mens rea. This is the one key significant difference between strict liability and other ordinary liability due to negligence.
Mens rea would not be required under the following presumptions:
(a) where the offence is not truly criminal in nature which is broadly regarded as only 'quasi-criminal', i.e. It carries no stigma;
(b) if the requirement of mens rea is clearly or impliedly omitted by the statute on the particular offence;
(c) where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as legislation involving public health, safety and welfare, traffic regulation, and so on;
(d) even where there is an issue of social concern involved, mens rea will still be required unless it can be shown that making the offence one of strict liability will help to prevent the offence occurring; and
(e) where the offence carries a relatively light punishment, typically a fine.
Ref:
Nuraisyah Chua Abdullah. 2004. Question & Answers on Malaysian Courts, Statutes, Cases & Contract, Tort and Criminal Law. 2013 Edition. Chapter 4. Page 150-151.