【正文】 ES The vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict a statute uses terms such as “knowingly” or “recklessly” then the offence being created is one that requires mens it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being many cases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or factors are taken into account by the courts when assessing whether or not an offence falls into the category of strict liability offences? THE MODERN CRITERIA In Gammon(Hong Kong)Ltd v AttorneyGeneral for Hong Kong [1984] the Privy Council considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in the modern criminal law and their effect upon the “presumption of mens rea”.Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability: “In their Lordships39。(2)the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is ”truly criminal“ in character。(4)the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern and public safety is such an issue。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 PUNISHMENT As 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 : Sweet v Parsley [1970]： The defendant was a landlady of a house let to retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and she was absent the police searched the house and found 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 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 STATUTE In determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced the courts are required to have reference to the whole statute in which the offence : Cundy v Le Cocq(1884)：The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act appeal the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer39。s principles in Gammon and found that though the presumption in favor of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was therefore “truly criminal” yet the offence dealt 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 : 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 had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his armband which was the acknowledged method of signifying off 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 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 this case the latter factor was significant in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being 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 am therefore of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed.” MODERN EXAMPLES The 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 river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant39。s reasoning can hardly be applied to many modern offences of strict do not wish to deter people from driving cars being concerned in the management of premises financing hire purchase transactions or canning acts if done with all proper care are not such acts as the law should seek to argumen