WORKING

PAPER

2

STRICT

LIABILITY

Brian

Hogan*

When

William

Prince met Annie

Phillips

in

the

yard

behind

the Fighting

Cocks

public

house

in

Reading

on the

3rd

of

January,

1875

and

took

her

off

to

Oxford,

he

could

hardly

have

known

what

he

was

letting

himself,

and

the

rest

of us,

in

for.

There

is

no

record

of

what Annie's

dad said

when

he caught

up

with

them

among

the

dreaming

spires

(presumably

it

would

have

contained

a number

of

expletives

which

we

would

have

had

to

delete),

but

we

do know

what

William

said

when

he

was

arrested

for

the abduction

of

Annie.

It

was

that

he thought

that

Annie

was

over

sixteen,

and

all

the

evidence

pointed

to

the

conclusion,

notwithstanding

that

Annie

was

a

mere

thirteen

years

old

at

the

time

of

the

alleged

offence,

that

William's

belief

was

a

perfectly

reasonable

one.

It

is

permissible

to

wonder whether

William would

have

been alarmed

or

merely amused

at

the

consequences

his

case

'

(for

his

was

the

decisive

case)

was

to

have on

the

development

of

the

criminal

law.

Most

likely

he

would

just

be

bewildered

by

it

all as

he

must

have

felt

bewildered

that

day

the

Lord

Chief

Justice

of

England,

the

Lord

Chief

Baron

and

fourteen

judges

of

the

Queen's

Bench,

Exchequer

and

Common

Pleas

divisions of

the

High

Court'

gravely

passed

upon

the

question

whether

his

belief

that

he

was

free

to

go

for

a

romp

with

Annie constituted

a

defence

to

a

charge

of

abduction

contrary

to

section

55

of

the

Offence

against

the

Person

Act

1861.'

We

all

know

that

the

Court for

Crown

Cases

Reserved

held,

by

the

impressive

majority

of

15

to

1,

that

it

did

not,

and

William

had

his con-

viction

for

abducting Annie

affirmed.

I

can

own

that

I

have shared

William's bewilderment

from the

time

I

first

heard

of his

fate

from

my

teacher

(a

most

delightful

and

urbane

man,

by

the

way, who

went

on

to vastly

more

important

things

than

teach

criminal

law),

since

I

could

not

see,

and

ever

since

have

failed

to

see,

quite

what

purpose

was

served

by

convicting

Prince

of

abduction.

As

I

recall,

his

(my

teacher's) explanation

was

that

the

purpose

of

the

statute

was

to

save

young

girls

from

themselves,

which

is

as

good

an

explanation

as

any

I

have

heard

but,

like

all

the

explanations

and justifications

that

have

been

ad-

*

LL.B.

of

Gray's

Inn,

Barrister,

Professor

of

Law,

University

of

Leeds.

'R.

v. Prince,

L.R.

2

Cr.

Cas.

Res.

154,

11

Cox

Crim.

Cas.

193

(1875).

'

From

these

three

divisions

the

only

absentees were

the Chief

Justice

of

the

Common

Pleas

Division,

Lord

Coleridge,

and

Huddleston

B.

'

24

&

25

Vict.

c.

100.