Cundy v Le Cocq
A publican was guilty of selling alcohol to a drunken person even though he did not know the customer was drunk.
Facts
Mr Cundy, a licensee, served alcohol to a customer who was drunk. Neither he nor his staff noticed that the customer was drunk, and the customer showed no obvious signs of drunkenness. He was charged under section 13 of the Licensing Act 1872 with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court upheld his conviction, holding that the offence did not require knowledge that the customer was drunk. Some sections of the Act expressly required knowledge, but section 13 did not, which suggested that Parliament intended it to be an offence of strict liability. The purpose of the Act was to protect the public by preventing the sale of alcohol to drunken people, and licensees were in a position to take care to avoid committing the offence.
Related cases on strict liability
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
- B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1
- Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999] 3 All ER 302
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 903
- R v G (2008) [2008] UKHL 37, [2009] 1 AC 92
- R v K [2001] UKHL 41, [2002] 1 AC 462
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
