Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
R v Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154
Absolute liability – Mens rea of abduction under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Henry Prince (H) was convicted under to section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father without the father’s consent. The girl, Annie Phillips (A), was in fact 14 years old, however A had told H that she was 18, and H reasonably believed that that was her age. The appellant appealed against his conviction.
Section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is silent as to the mens rea required for the offence. The issue in question was whether the court is required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute which is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, and therefore if H’s reasonable belief was a defence to the offence under Section 55.
Where a statute is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, the court is not bound to read a mens rea requirement into the statute. The offence was one of strict liability as to age, therefore a mens rea of knowledge of the girl’s actual age was not required to establish the offence. H’s reasonable belief was therefore no defence, and the conviction was upheld. This decision did not survive the later case of Sweet v. Parsley  AC 132, however. Sweet v. Parsley clarified the mens rea requirement for statutory offences, as it distinguished between regulatory crimes (imposing strict liability), and ‘true crimes’ which require a mens rea element.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: