【正文】 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 LIABILITYs 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。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 LIABILITY:Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a license, contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a strict) liability offence. The Court applied Lord Scarman39。 but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subjectmatter with which it deals, and both must be considered (2) GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENTAs a general rule, the more serious the criminal offence created by statute, the less likely the courts is to view it as an offence of strict liability. See:Sweet v Parsley [1970]： The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, of being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis. She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such House of Lords,quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for drugtaking, since the statute in question created a serious, or truly criminal offence, conviction for which would have grave consequences for the defendant. Lord Reid stated that a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma. And equally important, the press in this country are vigilant to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration.Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing.(3) WORDING OF THE STATUTEIn determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced, the courts are req