| 单词 | Strict liability offence |
| 释义 | 嚴格法律責任罪行 An offence which does not require any proof of mens rea: A-G v Fong Chin Yue [1995] 1 HKC 21. For example the offence of gambling in a gambling establishment (under the Gambling Ordinance (Cap 148) s 6) is one of strict liability (R v King Capital Club Co Ltd [1991] 1 HKLR 88 (CA)) and it is not open to a defendant to establish that the form of gambling in which he was engaged was lawful. An offence of strict liability is not truly criminal in character; it springs not from any inherent evil in the conduct prohibited but from the fact that such conduct is prohibited: Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1 (PC). However, strict liability offences do admit of a defence of reasonable though honestly mistaken belief: A-G v Fong Chin Yue & Ors [1995] 1 HKC 21 (CA). The test to determine whether an offence is one of strict liability is: (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; (2) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in character; (3) the presumption applies to statutory offences and can be displaced only if this is clear, or by necessary implication, the effect of the statute; (4) the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act: A-G v China State Construction Engineering Corp [1996] 1 HKC 53 (CA). See also Absolute liability; Strict liability. 不須證明任何犯罪意圖的罪行：A-G v Fong Chin Yue [1995] 1 HKC 21。例如有關在賭場內賭博的罪行（根據《賭博條例》（第148章）第6條）是其中一種嚴格法律責任（R v King Capital Club Co Ltd [1991] 1 HKLR 88（上訴法庭）），而被告人並非可證明他所進行的賭博方式屬合法。嚴格法律責任罪行並非真正屬於刑事性質；此等罪行並非源於受禁制行為的固有罪惡，而是由於該等行為事實上屬於受禁制行為：Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1（樞密院）。但嚴格法律責任罪行確實接納合理但真誠地誤信的抗辯：A-G v Fong Chin Yue 1995] 1 HKC 21（上訴法庭）。 決定某罪行是否嚴格法律責任的驗證是： (1) 有法律推定，須在裁定一人犯刑事罪行之前，證明有犯罪意圖；(2) 如有關罪行的性質「確實屬於刑事」，則有關的推定特別強烈；(3) 有關的推定適用於法定罪行，並僅如在清晰或以必然屬默示法規效力的方式的情況下，才可展示有關的推定；(4)如有關的法規涉及社會關注的問題，及公眾安全成為此等問題，則這才是唯一可展示有關推定的情況；(5) 即使某法規涉及此等問題，除非可顯示產生有關的嚴格法律責任可有效地促進法規的目的，即可憑藉鼓勵提高警愓以防止觸犯被禁制的行為，否則犯罪意圖的推定成立：A-G v China State Construction Engineering Corp [1996] 1 HKC 53（上訴法庭）。另見 Absolute liability; Strict liability。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。