→India: correct eccentric capitalisation; MOS:CURLY
No edit summary |
>Hairy Dude |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Canada== | ==Canada== | ||
In [[Canada]], absolute liability is one of three types of criminal or [[regulatory offences]]. In ''[[R | In [[Canada]], absolute liability is one of three types of criminal or [[regulatory offences]]. In ''[[R v City of Sault Ste-Marie]]'', the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] defined an absolute liability offence as an offence "where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault". This can be compared to a [[strict liability (criminal)|strict liability]] offence (where an accused can raise the defence of [[due diligence]]) and ''[[mens rea]]'' offences (where the prosecutor has to prove that the accused had some positive state of mind). | ||
Generally, criminal offences are presumed to be ''mens rea'' offences, and regulatory offences are presumed to be strict liability offences. Therefore, most offences are not absolute liability offences, and usually will require an explicit statement in the [[statute]].<ref>[http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html ''R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110114122228/http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html |date=January 14, 2011 }}, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 (S.C.C.) at 1325</ref> To determine if an offence is an absolute liability offence, the courts must look at: | Generally, criminal offences are presumed to be ''mens rea'' offences, and regulatory offences are presumed to be strict liability offences. Therefore, most offences are not absolute liability offences, and usually will require an explicit statement in the [[statute]].<ref>[http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html ''R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110114122228/http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html |date=January 14, 2011 }}, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 (S.C.C.) at 1325</ref> To determine if an offence is an absolute liability offence, the courts must look at: | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
{{quote| | {{quote| | ||
* | * Plaintiff's own mistake | ||
* | * Plaintiff's consent | ||
* Natural disasters | * Natural disasters | ||
* Third | * Third party's mistake | ||
* Part of a statutory duty | * Part of a statutory duty | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Indian | The Indian judiciary tried to make a strong effort following the [[Bhopal disaster]] in December 1984 (''Union Carbide Company v. Union of India'') to enforce greater amount of protection to the public. The doctrine of absolute liability was therefore evolved in the Oleum gas leak case and can be said to be a strong legal tool against rogue corporations that were negligent towards health risks for the public. This legal doctrine was much more powerful than the legal doctrine of strict liability developed in the [[English tort law]] case ''[[Rylands v Fletcher]]'' [1868]. This meant that the defaulter could be held liable for even third party errors when the public was at a realistic risk. This could ensure stricter compliance to standards that were meant to safeguard the public. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||