"I Didn't Know She Was 14"

Probably not many people know that some offences can be committed even when a person does not intend to commit any offence. This is called strict liability. It is very controversial because a person who did everything possible to act according to the law can still be found guilty of an offence.

Such offences require proof that someone performed actus reus of an offence (an act) but no mens rea is required (an intention). For example, in Harrow London BC v Shah the defendant was convicted for selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16. Although, he did not know that that person was under 16 and it was not obvious that he was under 16. So, even if a person acts reasonably he can still be found guilty of an offence. But, possible defences include duress and self defence.

A case demonstrating strict liability is B (A Child) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] where a 15 years old defendant was convicted of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency contrary to section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. He believed that she was over 14 but it was not a defence and his appeal was dismissed. The House of Lords confirmed the decision of lower courts.

Similarly, in R and K (2001) 26 years old man was charged with indecently assaulting a 14 year old girl. As in the above case, the defendant thought that she was older because she told him that she was 16. But, it was not relevant.

So, it may seem strange that an offence can be committed without an intention. Therefore, men should especially be careful in their relations with girls not to get convicted considering that girls may seen older than they are because of clothes and make-up.




Sources: https://i0.wp.com/www.acpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/indicted-featured.jpg?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=1