Offences Against Intoxicating Liquor
Cundy v Le Cocq - - Under Section 13 Licensing Act a person cannot serve wime to a drunken person. OKT served wine to drunken person, he contended that he don’t know he was drunk. It was held that this is strict liability case and mens rea is not needed.
Sherras v D Rutzen - - Acc served wine to Constable contravene to Section 16(2). He contended that constable uninformed so don’t know he was a constable. On appeal it was held not liable and mens rea required.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storwill - - App was charged for supplying medicines on wrong prescription. The trial court acquitted because they acted in good faith that the prescription was genuine and not forgery. PP appealed successfully. But on House of Lords it was held that this was strict liability and the case no need mens rea.
Seah Eng Joo v PP - - Acc PCO charged contravening the order remaining out door. He contended that at that evening he was drunk and fall asleep and not possible to go back home. It was held that this was strict liability case and mens rea is not needed. But in the case of Ayavoo v PP (Malaysian case) it was held that mens rea required.
Offences Related to Trade
PP v Osman Appo - - Acc carried 130 bags of rice in a lorry. However in his permit it is only allowed to carry 80 bags. Session acquitted but on appeal it was held that mens rea is not required and this is a case of strict liability. It it intention is legislature to stabilize the price and balance distribution.
General Offences
Lim Chin Aik v R - - Acc entered Singapore under a valid visa. Then Singapore government made an order restricting him to enter Singapore. This order was brought in Acc attention. Then he was charged under Section 6(2) of Immigration Act. Acc contended that mens rea must be proved but PO said no need mens rea because it is strict liability.. PC – mens rea required to be proved and the order is not the law.
Mohd Ibrahim v PP - - In possession and for sale of obscene book under Section 292 of Penal Code. Acc contended that he was illiterate could not read therefore did not know it was obscene book. PO contended that it was strict liability and mens rea is not needed. It was held that the intention of legislature is to protect those who may be tempted with this book. It was held that it was an offence of strict liability.
See further Lim's and Mohd's cases.
Cundy v Le Cocq - - Under Section 13 Licensing Act a person cannot serve wime to a drunken person. OKT served wine to drunken person, he contended that he don’t know he was drunk. It was held that this is strict liability case and mens rea is not needed.
Sherras v D Rutzen - - Acc served wine to Constable contravene to Section 16(2). He contended that constable uninformed so don’t know he was a constable. On appeal it was held not liable and mens rea required.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storwill - - App was charged for supplying medicines on wrong prescription. The trial court acquitted because they acted in good faith that the prescription was genuine and not forgery. PP appealed successfully. But on House of Lords it was held that this was strict liability and the case no need mens rea.
Seah Eng Joo v PP - - Acc PCO charged contravening the order remaining out door. He contended that at that evening he was drunk and fall asleep and not possible to go back home. It was held that this was strict liability case and mens rea is not needed. But in the case of Ayavoo v PP (Malaysian case) it was held that mens rea required.
Offences Related to Trade
PP v Osman Appo - - Acc carried 130 bags of rice in a lorry. However in his permit it is only allowed to carry 80 bags. Session acquitted but on appeal it was held that mens rea is not required and this is a case of strict liability. It it intention is legislature to stabilize the price and balance distribution.
General Offences
Lim Chin Aik v R - - Acc entered Singapore under a valid visa. Then Singapore government made an order restricting him to enter Singapore. This order was brought in Acc attention. Then he was charged under Section 6(2) of Immigration Act. Acc contended that mens rea must be proved but PO said no need mens rea because it is strict liability.. PC – mens rea required to be proved and the order is not the law.
Mohd Ibrahim v PP - - In possession and for sale of obscene book under Section 292 of Penal Code. Acc contended that he was illiterate could not read therefore did not know it was obscene book. PO contended that it was strict liability and mens rea is not needed. It was held that the intention of legislature is to protect those who may be tempted with this book. It was held that it was an offence of strict liability.
See further Lim's and Mohd's cases.
