R v Prince
A defendant was guilty of taking a girl under 16 out of her father's possession even though he reasonably believed she was 18.
Facts
Mr Prince took a 14 year old girl away from her father without his consent. She looked older than she was and had told him she was 18, and he honestly and reasonably believed her. He was charged with unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father, under section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Legal principle
The court upheld his conviction. The majority held that knowledge of the girl's age was not an element of the offence, so his reasonable mistaken belief that she was over 16 was no defence. Some judges reasoned that he had done an act that was morally wrong in taking the girl from her father, so he took the risk that she was under age. The decision was disapproved by the House of Lords in B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428.
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
- Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207
- 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
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.
