Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132

Facts

  • Stephanie Sweet, the appellant, was the sub-tenant of a farmhouse and rented out several rooms to others while retaining one for herself.
  • Sweet occasionally visited the property to collect rent and mail but did not reside there full-time.
  • Police searched the property during Sweet’s absence and discovered cannabis.
  • Sweet was charged under Section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 with being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis resin.
  • Sweet maintained she had no knowledge of drug use on her premises.
  • The case turned on whether her lack of knowledge could exempt her from liability under the statute.

Issues

  1. Should Section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 be interpreted as requiring proof of mens rea, specifically knowledge of the illicit activity, or as imposing strict liability regardless of knowledge?
  2. Does silence in a statutory provision regarding mens rea create an offence of strict liability?
  3. How should courts determine whether to imply a mental element when a statute does not expressly address it?

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the presumption of mens rea applies to statutory offences unless Parliament clearly indicates a contrary intention.
  • The offence under Section 5(b) was deemed "truly criminal" and thus required proof that Sweet had knowledge of the drug use.
  • Sweet’s conviction was quashed due to absence of evidence of her knowledge regarding the use of her premises for drug consumption.
  • The court distinguished between "truly criminal" offences and regulatory offences, finding that more serious offences warrant a requirement for mens rea.
  • The House of Lords criticized earlier approaches, particularly as seen in R v Prince, that had favored strict liability for statutory offences.

Legal Principles

  • There is a strong presumption at common law that mens rea is required for serious (truly criminal) offences unless explicitly excluded by legislation.
  • Statutes silent on mens rea will not automatically be interpreted as creating strict liability unless the offence is regulatory or Parliament’s intent is clear.
  • Regulatory offences related to public safety may appropriately be strict liability, but serious crimes require proof of a guilty mind.
  • The decision in Sweet v Parsley reaffirmed the importance of protecting individuals from unjust criminal convictions due to strict liability.
  • Subsequent guidance, such as the Gammon principles, clarified the criteria for identifying strict liability offences in statutory interpretation.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in Sweet v Parsley established that, for statutory offences classified as true crimes, courts must presume a requirement for mens rea unless Parliament's intention to impose strict liability is clearly expressed, thus safeguarding against unjust criminal liability based solely on statutory silence.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal