The appellant was charged, under s. 27 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, with giving a false warranty in writing to a purchaser in respect of an article of food sold by the appellant. When the appellant sold the article he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the warranty was false. Held, that he was not liable to be convicted.
Wright J said: ‘The general rule is that a presumption exists that mens rea is essential to every criminal offence. There are instances in which it has been held that this presumption is displaced by the words of the statute creating the offence, but where this is the case the intention must be clearly expressed.’
Hawkins J, Wright J
[1897] 1 QB 772, [1897] UKLawRpKQB 82
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sherras v De Rutzen QBD 2-May-1895
The court considered the need to establish mens rea where it was dealing with something which was one of a class of acts which ‘are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty’, and ‘There . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.653246