Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council]
- The defendant substantially deviated from building plans in his Hong Kong development
- The defendant believed that his deviation was minor, but the offence committed was one of strict liability
- Could a mens rea requirement be read into the offence?
- Gammon was sentenced to 3 years in prison
- A mens rea will be presumed in all offences, unless the crime is regulatory, not a true crime, the penalty imposed is not serious and Parliament didn’t intend a mens rea requirement
- ‘True crime’ is undefined
- Opinion: 3 years is substantial
Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 28th December 2014