【Acrylic Painting by Dennis Tang】
(Paintings and Photos may not be relevant to the incident described)
The appellant was a builder who had deviated from approved plans in the construction of a building. It was an offence to deviate from the plans in a substantial way which was likely to cause risk of injury. It was held that the offence was one of “strict liability” and therefore his belief (criminal intent, “Mens rea” ) was irrelevant and his conviction upheld.
“Mens rea” is a presumed essential ingredient of every offence. However, this presumption may be rebutted if it is clear by the words of the statute creating the offence or if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, such as public safety, and the imposition of strict liability for the offence such as the case described here.
