Sweet v Parsley
There is a strong presumption that Parliament intends mens rea to be required for criminal offences, especially truly criminal offences.
Facts
Miss Sweet, a teacher, rented a farmhouse near Oxford and let rooms to students. She did not live there, but visited occasionally to collect rent. Police found cannabis in the farmhouse, which the students had been smoking without her knowledge. She was convicted of being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis, under section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed her conviction. Lord Reid said that there is a presumption that, in a statute creating a criminal offence, Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did, and that the courts should read in words requiring mens rea unless it is clear that Parliament intended otherwise. The offence was a truly criminal one, carrying serious stigma, rather than a regulatory offence, so the presumption applied. The words for the purpose of required that the premises were used for that purpose with the knowledge of the person concerned in their management.
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.
