Sherras v De Rutzen
There is a presumption that mens rea is required, and a publican who reasonably believed a police officer was off duty was not guilty of serving him while on duty.
Facts
Under the Licensing Act 1872, it was an offence for a licensee to supply alcohol to a police constable while on duty. On duty police officers wore an armband. A police officer removed his armband and went into Mr Sherras's pub, where he was served. Mr Sherras reasonably believed that the officer was off duty.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court quashed his conviction. Wright J said that there is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence, but that the presumption may be displaced by the words of the statute or by the subject matter with which it deals. It would be impossible for a licensee to avoid committing the offence however careful he was, because he could not know that the officer was on duty, so the presumption was not displaced.
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.
