ABSTRACT
Apart from justification for strict liability based on the lower level of stigma attached to the (on occasion blameless) offender, the overturning of the normal requirement of mens rea is also capable of justification with reference to the effective application of the law. The imposition of strict liability affects and is affected by two further principal characteristics of the regulatory offence. The first is the due diligence defence, which in practical terms mitigates the severity of the basic strict liability offence. The second is the pattern of enforcement, which tends to emphasise co-operation and negotiation in preference to the imposition of formal penalties. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 has pared down the defence from the more elaborate requirements of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to focus on due diligence. Nevertheless the defences share the broad policy of offering the careful trader a defined protection from conviction. Despite the textual differences, their practical application is doubtless similar.
