⇒ Most strict liability offences are found in statutes.

⇒ If Parliament has not included a mens rea requirement for a statutory offence the court has to decide whether to interpret the crime as one of strict liability or to read in a mens rea requirement.

⇒ The cases of B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] and R v K [2001] have reinforced the common law that in interpreting statutory offences there is a presumption against strict liability and in favour of mens rea.

⇒ As a result of these decisions the court will read mens rea into a statue unless either:

• There is clear wording in the statute indicating that the offence is to be one of strict liability; or
• There is a 'compellingly clear' inference that the offence is to be one of strict liability.

⇒ There are a number of factors a court will take into account in deciding whether there is a 'compellingly clear' inference that the offence is to be one of strict liability:

• If some sections of a particular statute refer to mens rea and other parts do not, the parts WITHOUT reference to mens rea are more likely to be strict liability.
• The court will look at similar offences to determine whether the offence in question is one of strict liability or not.
• The court will consider the social context of the offence → occasionally the court will look to see whether the offence is intended to be 'truly criminal'. If the offence is NOT intended to be 'truly criminal' (and, instead, intended to be a regulatory offence) the offence is more likely to be one of strict liability.

⇒ If there is no clear evidence that the statute is to be one of strict liability the court will presume mens rea.

⇒ The presumed mens rea will be that the defendant will have a defence if the defendant believed (even if unreasonably) that an aspect of the actus reus did not exist.