1

CRIMINAL LAW
TOPIC 4: STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

MENS REA REQUIREMENT: EXPRESS OR PRESUMPTION
1. Express requirement of proof of mens rea in statutory provision
2. If not expressly stated common law presumption of mens rea
- P to prove BRD culpable state of mind of D (intention, knowledge, reckless)
- Sweet v Parsley

PRESUMPTION OF MENS REA IS REBUTTABLE
- Express or implied terms of legislation itself
- If rebutted: offence does not require P to prove culpable state of mind
At all, or
As to one or more key AR elements
Strict liability/absolute liability case

STATUTORY DEFENCES
- Legislature can enact a defence in the statute
- E.g. S.128, Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200)
- S. 128(1) enacts offence of abducting mentally incapacitated person from parent or
guardian for sexual act
- S. 128(2) [defence part]: D not guilty if does not know and has no reason to suspect the
other to be a mentally incapacitated person
Burden to prove this placed on D, on a balance of probabilities
S. 150, Crimes Ordinance

AR and MR required, legal burden on P to prove BRD
No MR required as to one/more AR elements, but subject to statutory defence relating to
that AR element, with legal burden on D to prove on BOP
No MR required (as to one or more AR elements), no statutory defence


2
COMMON LAW HALFWAY-HOUSE DEFENCES