Absolute liability
There is no requirement for the actus reus to have been voluntarily.
This means that, unlike all other forms of crime, the defendant need not voluntarily commit the actus reus or have ant mens rea.
See: R V Larsonneur
However, these are very rare (rare to get a question on in exam).
Strict liability
The actus reus must be voluntarily - the defendant must voluntarily conduct the action.
There is however, no requirement for the prosecution to prove any mens rea existed.
This means, unlike with other types of offences, there is no requirement for fault (Pharmaceutical Society of GB V Storkwain)
Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd V AG for Hong Kong (the Gammon test):
Sets out clear presumption the courts use to determine with an Act creates a strict liability offence:
1) There is a general common law presumption that all criminal offences require mens rea;
This was seen in the case of Sweet V Parsley where the court held that drug-based offences relating to the production of cannabis required a mens rea.
2) The presumption can only be displaced if it is clearly necessary by implication or effect of the words of the statute;
As a matter of statutory interpretation, because Parliamentary Counsel know of these presumptions, strict liability offences do not use mens rea based words such as; knowingly, intentionally, dishonesty etc.
3) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is “truely criminal” in character;
Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah where the underage selling of lottery tickets was deemed to be strict liability.
4) The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern (societal issues) such as public safety, health and welfare, the environment etc;
Licencing abuse (Cundy V Le Coq)
Consumer Protections and public health (Callow V Tillstone)
5) Strict liability should only apply where its application encourages greater vigilance to protect the prohibited act;
Lim Chin Aik V The Queen - a person was not convicted of an order they did not know about because the court felt - given the order was not effectively communicated - it would therefore not encourage greater obedience to the law.
As strict liability does not require fault:
Due diligence (doing everything to try and prevent something from happening) is not automatically a defence (Harrow LBC V Shah and Shah)
Mistake is also not an offence (Cundy V Le Cocq)
The ratio from R V Lane and Letts
The presumption to require mens rea can only be applied so far as the statute allow is; this presumption is rebutted (removed) if the words are completely clear.