## Facts

- Larsonneur, a French national, lawfully entered the United Kingdom with limited leave to remain.
- At the expiration of her leave, she left the UK and traveled to the Irish Free State instead of returning to France.
- The Irish authorities deported Larsonneur, forcibly returning her to the United Kingdom.
- Upon arrival in England, she was charged under the Aliens Order 1920 for “being an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused was found in the United Kingdom.”
- Larsonneur's presence in the UK was entirely involuntary, as it resulted from her deportation by Irish authorities rather than any voluntary act of her own.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can be held criminally liable for a “state of affairs” offense when her presence in the prohibited location was involuntary.
2. Whether the lack of voluntary conduct on the part of Larsonneur negated criminal liability under the Aliens Order 1920.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Larsonneur’s conviction under the Aliens Order 1920.
- The court held that the manner in which she returned to the United Kingdom was irrelevant to her liability.
- The decisive factor was the factual state of “being found” in the United Kingdom as an alien without leave, not the voluntariness of her presence.
- The court interpreted the legislation literally, imposing strict liability based solely on physical presence.

## Legal Principles

- State of affairs offenses can impose criminal liability based on the mere existence of a prohibited condition, rather than voluntary conduct.
- The requirement for voluntary act (actus reus) can be displaced in strict liability offenses, as illustrated by the interpretation of “being found.”
- The case highlights the controversial nature of removing the voluntariness requirement from criminal liability, contrasting with principles established in cases concerning automatism and involuntary conduct.

## Conclusion

R v Larsonneur exemplifies a state of affairs offense where strict liability is imposed notwithstanding complete absence of voluntary conduct. The case has been widely criticized for its harshness, illustrating the potential injustice when criminal liability is based solely on circumstances outside the defendant's control.


R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App Rep 74