question about strict liability

by8auj6csd3ioq

https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-2017/nov-17-gazette.pdf#page=55

"For completeness, the DPP did, however,
agree that the trial judge had erred in
charging the jury that the offence was one
of strict liability – and the Supreme Court
upheld the appeal of the accused that the
conviction should be quashed on the basis of
the jury being misdirected on that issue"


but also says

"Given that the Supreme Court has now ruled
that it is not necessary to establish
mens rea in a prosecution for careless driving resulting
in death or serious bodily harm, "

if it is not necessary for mens rea is it not strict liability?

Claw Hammer

Toby Purple Clerk wrote: »

https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-2017/nov-17-gazette.pdf#page=55

"For completeness, the DPP did, however,
agree that the trial judge had erred in
charging the jury that the offence was one
of strict liability – and the Supreme Court
upheld the appeal of the accused that the
conviction should be quashed on the basis of
the jury being misdirected on that issue"


but also says

"Given that the Supreme Court has now ruled
that it is not necessary to establish
mens rea in a prosecution for careless driving resulting
in death or serious bodily harm, "

if it is not necessary for mens rea is it not strict liability?

No. In a strict liability offence, the fact that the incident happened at all is enough. For example in some pollution cases, the polluter may in fact be blameless by ordinary standards, but the fact of pollution having occurred is enough to convict. That is not the case with careless driving. It is not the fact of death which gives rise to the conviction, it is the fact of the careless driving.