9

When a law requires someone to do something when certain circumstances exist, is it strict liability? Does a fact-finder finding that those circumstances did in fact exist automatically establish criminal liability for not doing the thing required, regardless of the person disputing/not having knowledge those circumstances?

Suppose Alice asks Bob to provide identification. Alice asserts that:

  1. She is a police officer
  2. Bob matches the description of someone who committed a robbery
  3. Bob matching the description provides her with reasonable suspicion that Bob committed a crime
  4. They are in a state that requires people to provide identification to police when the police have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.

To what extent is Bob obligated to accept these assertions? Can he demand Alice provide identification? Call the police to verify Alice's employment? Demand proof that there was in fact a description that he matches? What if he disputes that the description is specific enough to give Alice reasonable suspicion? Is Bob obligated to accept Alice's opinion that it is? Can Bob demand time to research identification laws in his state before giving identification to Alice?

Acccumulation
  • 6,689
  • 13
  • 32

2 Answers2

8

When a law requires someone to do something when certain circumstances exist, is it strict liability?

It depends on the law.

Sometimes the law will expressly be phrased in terms of knowledge: "every person that [does X] knowing that [Y] commits an offence..."

Sometimes the law will be silent as to the mens rea. For true criminal offences, the interpretive presumption is that the offence requires a mens rea of intention, knowledge, or recklessness.

For regulatory offences, the interpretive presumption is that the offence is a strict-liability offence, allowing only for a due diligence defence.

Some regulatory offences though are absolute liability, where even a due diligence defence or mistake-of-fact defence is unavailable. But this needs to be expressly stated in the words of the statute.

As to knowledge of the law, this is not an element of most offences, and ignorance of the law is not a defence to most offences. The specific intention to violate some law that you know about is only relevant for some fraud-like offences.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381
5

It depends on the law

The relevant law here is in s11-13 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

Relevantly, s202 requires that the police officer must provide:

(a) evidence that the police officer is a police officer (unless the police officer is in uniform),

(b) the name of the police officer and his or her place of duty,

(c) the reason for the exercise of the power.

Note that only the first requires “evidence”, for the others, mere assertion is sufficient.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546