R v Larsonneur [1933]
Share
R v Larsonneur [1933] 24 Cr App R 74 stands as a notable illustration of the application of actus reus to strict liability offences in English criminal law, particularly in the context of immigration laws.
Larsonneur, a French national, entered the United Kingdom with specific conditions on her stay. However, these conditions were altered, and she was subsequently ordered to leave the UK before a specified date. Larsonneur complied with the order and went to the Irish Free State. Unfortunately, she faced deportation from Ireland and was forced to return to Holyhead on April 21, 1933. Upon her return, she was arrested and charged with breaching the Aliens Order 1920, a law that criminalised being found in the United Kingdom without proper authorisation.
During the appeal, Larsonneur's lawyer argued that her presence in the United Kingdom after the expiration of the departure deadline was not an offence unless it could be proven that she landed in contravention of the order. The argument emphasised her lack of control over the circumstances that led to her return. However, Lord Hewart CJ dismissed the appeal, supporting the Crown's position that the manner in which Larsonneur arrived in the UK was irrelevant. The crucial factor was her presence in the country, irrespective of the circumstances of her return.
The decision has faced criticism for its application of strict liability, a legal concept that holds individuals criminally liable even when their actions are involuntary. Critics argue that strict liability, in this context, results in criminal culpability regardless of the individual's intention or control over the situation. This approach has been viewed as potentially harsh, especially when applied to offences related to immigration, where individuals may find themselves in involuntary and unforeseen circumstances.
Nevertheless, the case remains significant in discussions surrounding strict liability offences and prompts considerations about the balance between enforcing immigration laws and ensuring fairness and proportionality in the legal system.
Larsonneur, a French national, entered the United Kingdom with specific conditions on her stay. However, these conditions were altered, and she was subsequently ordered to leave the UK before a specified date. Larsonneur complied with the order and went to the Irish Free State. Unfortunately, she faced deportation from Ireland and was forced to return to Holyhead on April 21, 1933. Upon her return, she was arrested and charged with breaching the Aliens Order 1920, a law that criminalised being found in the United Kingdom without proper authorisation.
During the appeal, Larsonneur's lawyer argued that her presence in the United Kingdom after the expiration of the departure deadline was not an offence unless it could be proven that she landed in contravention of the order. The argument emphasised her lack of control over the circumstances that led to her return. However, Lord Hewart CJ dismissed the appeal, supporting the Crown's position that the manner in which Larsonneur arrived in the UK was irrelevant. The crucial factor was her presence in the country, irrespective of the circumstances of her return.
The decision has faced criticism for its application of strict liability, a legal concept that holds individuals criminally liable even when their actions are involuntary. Critics argue that strict liability, in this context, results in criminal culpability regardless of the individual's intention or control over the situation. This approach has been viewed as potentially harsh, especially when applied to offences related to immigration, where individuals may find themselves in involuntary and unforeseen circumstances.
Nevertheless, the case remains significant in discussions surrounding strict liability offences and prompts considerations about the balance between enforcing immigration laws and ensuring fairness and proportionality in the legal system.
