【正文】 with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid mitting the offence. (5) IS THERE ANY PURPOSE IN IMPOSING STRICT LIABILITY?The courts will be reluctant to construe a statute as imposing strict liability upon a defendant, where there is evidence to suggest that despite his having taken all reasonable steps, he cannot avoid the mission of an offence. See:Sherras v De Rutzen [1895]: The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his armband, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16 (2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favor of mens rea would only be displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being mitted. Wright J stated: It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. I am, therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed.MODERN EXAMPLESThe following case is a modern example of the imposition of strict liability: Alphacell v Woodward [1972] The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant39。s factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated: If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would bee filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. The legislature no doubt recognized that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it.ARGUMENTS FOR STRICT LIABILITY1. The primary function of the courts is the prevention of forbidden acts. What acts should be regarded as forbidden? Surely only such acts as we can assert ought not to have been done. Some of the judges who upheld the conviction of Prince did so on the ground that men should be deterred from taking girls out of the possession of their parents, whatever the girl39。s age. This reasoning can hardly be applied to many modern offences of strict liability. We do not wish to deter people from driving cars, being concerned in the management of premises, financing hire purchase transactions or canning peas. These acts, if done with all proper care, are not such acts as the law should seek to prevent.2. Another argument that is frequently advanced in favor of strict liability is that, without it, many guilty people would escape that there is neither time nor personnel available to litigate the culpability of each particular infraction. T his argument assumes that it is possible to deal with these cases without deciding whether D had mens rea or not, whether he was negligent or not. Certainly D may be convicted without deciding these questions, but how can he be sentenced? Suppose that a butcher sells some meat which is unfit for human consumption. Clearly the court will deal differently with (i) the butcher who knew that the meat was tainted。 (ii) the butcher who did not know, but ought to have known。 and (iii) the butcher who did not know and had no means of finding out. Sentence can hardly be imposed without deciding into which category the convicted person falls.3. The argument which is probably most frequently advanced by the courts for imposing strict liability is that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public. Now it may be conceded that in many of the instances where strict liability has been imposed, the public does need protection against negligence and, assuming that the threat of punishment can make the potential harm doer more careful, there may be a valid ground for imposing liability for negligence as well as where there is mens rea. This is a plausible argument in favor of strict liability if there were no middle way between mens rea and strict liability that is liability for negligence and the judges have generally proceeded on the basis that there is no such middle way. Liability for negligence has rarely been spelled out of a statute except where, as in driving without due care, it is explicitly required. Lord Devlin has said: It is not easy to find a way of construing a statute apparently expressed in terms of absolute liability so as to produce the requirement of negligence. ARGUMENTS AGAINST STRICT LIABILITY1. The case against strict liability, then, is, first, that it is unnecessary. It results in the conviction of persons who have behaved impeccably and who should not be required to alter