Legal Case Summary
R v Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154
Absolute liability – Mens rea of abduction under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Facts
Henry Prince (H) was convicted under to section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father without the father’s consent. The girl, Annie Phillips (A), was in fact 14 years old, however A had told H that she was 18, and H reasonably believed that that was her age. The appellant appealed against his conviction.
Issues
Section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is silent as to the mens rea required for the offence. The issue in question was whether the court is required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute which is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, and therefore if H’s reasonable belief was a defence to the offence under Section 55.
Decision/Outcome
Where a statute is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, the court is not bound to read a mens rea requirement into the statute. The offence was one of strict liability as to age, therefore a mens rea of knowledge of the girl’s actual age was not required to establish the offence. H’s reasonable belief was therefore no defence, and the conviction was upheld. This decision did not survive the later case of Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132, however. Sweet v. Parsley clarified the mens rea requirement for statutory offences, as it distinguished between regulatory crimes (imposing strict liability), and ‘true crimes’ which require a mens rea element.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in R v Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 and its historical significance. The article’s statement that the decision “did not survive” Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 should be read with care. Sweet v Parsley did not formally overrule R v Prince, but it significantly qualified the approach to strict liability by establishing a strong presumption in favour of a mens rea requirement for “true crimes”, with strict liability confined primarily to regulatory offences. R v Prince remains a historically important authority on the development of strict liability doctrine and continues to be cited in that context.
Readers should also note that section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, under which Prince was convicted, has since been repealed and replaced. The substantive law on child abduction is now governed primarily by the Child Abduction Act 1984, which contains its own mens rea provisions. The 1984 Act provides a defence where a defendant reasonably believed the child was aged 16 or over (section 2(3)), meaning the position under current law differs materially from the outcome in Prince. The case therefore remains relevant as a matter of legal history and doctrine, but does not reflect the current statutory position.
