09 January 2016

The differrence between Absolute and Strict Liability

Absolute/Strict Liability
from the Commoner’s Understanding No Technicalities in law series, brought to you by CorpAu

The courts of Australia are based on the Roman Code or Roman Curia law.

What this means is that before you even enter the courtroom doors you are branded as guilty.

The terms that are used to describe your ‘guilt’ are absolute liability and strict liability.

The definitions of the two phrases are as follows:

Absolute liability – you are guilty and you will be punished.

Strict liability – you are guilty and you must prove your innocence.

Do not be fooled by the common catch phrase that you’re “innocent until proven guilty.

This does not apply in Australia.

The phrase only belongs in Hollywood films. Leave it there.


Anonymous said...

Note there's two facets, civil and criminal: strict-liability. Both are the lack of proof needed or mens-rea to hold person responsible. The civil factor in regards to torts - negligence vs intention.

It also plays into bodies, as in strict-liability on an employee or public-servant, means they take the rap, not the institution unless specified to the contrary in legislation.

Anonymous said...

Strict-liability can play to your benefit. Example I've used it with Social Security in blocking them from disclosing personal information with Service-Providers/non-government Job-Agencies.

I have a sovereign government stance where I attempt to block out all service providers in my Government affairs.

Social Security Public Servants are liable to two year prison sentence if they disclose personal information without an agreement. I'd have to re-examine the federal legislation to see if this still stands though.