Betts v Armstead

Strict liability

Overview of classes of no mens rea offences:-

Sherras v De Rutzen approved in Alphacell Ltd v Woodward

Illustrative precedents:-

A-G v Lockwood (1842) 9 M&W 378 (re an Act banning beer sellers having on premises liquorice)

R v Woodrow (1846) 15 M&W 404 (re an Act banning possession of adulterated tobacco)

R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702 (re an Act banning dumping in rivers)
relatedly "some and possibly all cases of" public nuisance

Fitzpatrick v Kelly (1873) LR 8 QB 337 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872)

Roberts v Egerton (1874) LR 9 QB 494 (re Adulteration of Food Act 1872)

R v Bishop (1880) 5 QBD 259 (re an Act banning unlicensed care homes admitting lunatics)

Betts v Armstead (1888) LR 20 QBD 771 (re Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875)

Morden v Porter [1972] AC 824 (accidental straying in the hunt)
Non-strict liability (mens rea essential) offences so prosecuted on a misunderstanding:-
see notable English mens rea cases

Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132

see English criminal law

Betts v. Armstead, L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 771 (1888), was an English case decided by the Queen's Bench that adopted a strict liability standard and furthermore no requirement of knowledge or suspicion for violations of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). The defendant contended that he did not know that his product did not abide by the standards of the statute, but the court held that there was no mens rea requirement for the violation.^[1]