What is the difference between 'strict liability' and 'absolute liability'?

In Plain English

Both strict and absolute liability mean you can be found guilty of an offense even if you didn't intend to do anything wrong or weren't aware you were doing anything wrong. The key difference is that with strict liability, you can argue that you made an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. However, with absolute liability, you cannot use that defense.

Detailed Explanation

The key difference between strict liability and absolute liability lies in the availability of the defence of mistake of fact.

• Strict Liability: As defined in section 6.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and section 23 of the Criminal Code 2007 (NI), for offences of strict liability, there are no fault elements required for any of the physical elements of the offence. However, the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and section 36 of the Criminal Code 2007 (NI) is available. This means that if the accused can demonstrate an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief about the facts, which, if true, would mean that their conduct was not an offence, they may be excused. Several sections in the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 are strict liability offences.

• Absolute Liability: As defined in section 6.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and section 24 of the Criminal Code 2007 (NI), for offences of absolute liability, similar to strict liability, there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence. However, critically, the defence of mistake of fact is not available. This means that even if the accused acted under an honest and reasonable mistake of fact, they can still be found guilty of the offence.

In summary, both strict and absolute liability remove the need to prove intent or fault. However, strict liability allows for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, while absolute liability does not.