Sherras v De Rutzen
1895 · 1 QB 918
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A publican served drink to a police officer who was on duty but was not wearing his armlet. The officer was therefore not visibly on duty. The publican was charged with supplying liquor to a constable on duty.
- Issue
- Does the offence require knowledge that the constable is on duty?
- Held
- The was quashed. Wright J stated the presumption that is an ingredient of every offence, displaceable by the words of the statute or by the subject matter, both of which must be considered.
- Principle
- Mens rea is presumed. Silence in one section is not, by itself, .
- Why it matters
- Sweet v Parsley is the modern affirmation of this presumption.
Words and Latin in this note
- Strict liability
- An offence in which the prosecution need not prove a guilty mind as to one or more elements. The act must still be proved, and it must still be voluntary. The presumption is that mens rea is required, unless the statute or its subject matter displaces it. Open the note.
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.