R v Larsonneur [1933] stands as one of the most frequently discussed cases in English criminal law when examining the doctrine of strict liability and the role of actus reus. The decision is often criticised for its perceived harshness, as it highlights how liability can be imposed regardless of an individual’s intention or control over their actions. The facts surrounding the case relate to immigration restrictions in the early twentieth century, and its significance continues to echo in debates about the balance between enforcing legal rules and ensuring fairness to defendants.
This case is often taught to illustrate the way strict liability offences operate, particularly in situations where individuals find themselves in circumstances entirely beyond their control. By focusing exclusively on the physical presence of the accused in the United Kingdom, the decision reflects an uncompromising approach to immigration offences.
Facts of R v Larsonneur Case
The facts of R v Larsonneur are relatively straightforward but deeply significant in shaping the case’s outcome:
- The defendant, Larsonneur, was a French national who had been granted permission to enter the United Kingdom, subject to specific conditions regarding her stay.
- After her arrival, these conditions were altered by the authorities. She was subsequently ordered to leave the country before 22 March 1933.
- Larsonneur complied with this order and travelled to the Irish Free State.
- Once in Ireland, she faced deportation and, against her will, was placed on a vessel and returned to the United Kingdom.
- On 21 April 1933, she arrived in Holyhead, where she was immediately arrested.
- She was charged with breaching the Aliens Order 1920, which made it a criminal offence for a foreign national to be found in the United Kingdom without proper authorisation.
The striking feature of the case lies in the involuntary nature of her return. Larsonneur did not choose to re-enter the United Kingdom but was deported by the Irish authorities. Despite her compliance with the original order to leave, her physical presence back in the country was enough to trigger criminal liability under the immigration law provisions.
Legal Issue
The central issue in R v Larsonneur was whether a person could be held criminally liable for being “found” in the United Kingdom without proper authorisation, even when their presence was involuntary and the result of deportation by another country.
This question goes to the heart of the doctrine of strict liability. The case forced the court to decide whether voluntariness — a usual element in establishing criminal liability — was required for the offence under the Aliens Order 1920.
Arguments
During the appeal, Larsonneur’s legal counsel, Marston Garsia, advanced the argument that:
- Simply being in the United Kingdom after the expiry of her permitted time was not enough to constitute an offence.
- For liability to arise, it needed to be proved that she had landed in contravention of the order.
- The evidence, however, showed that she had not landed voluntarily; she had been forced to return by a “superior force” — the actions of the Irish authorities — over which she had no control.
On the other hand, the Crown contended that voluntariness was not necessary. What mattered under the statute was the fact of her presence in the United Kingdom without permission. The manner of her arrival was irrelevant.
R v Larsonneur Judgement
The Court of Criminal Appeal, led by Lord Hewart CJ, dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that:
- The way Larsonneur came to be in the United Kingdom was immaterial.
- The offence under the Aliens Order 1920 was committed by her being found in the country without authorisation.
- The only necessary element was her physical presence, regardless of the lack of choice in her return.
This reasoning demonstrated a strict interpretation of the legislation and confirmed that offences of this nature fell within the category of strict liability.
Reasoning in R v Larsonneur
The reasoning in R v Larsonneur illustrates the uncompromising approach taken by the courts in enforcing immigration laws at the time. The Court held that:
- The offence was constructed in such a way that intention, voluntariness, or control were irrelevant.
- It was enough to prove that the defendant was found in the United Kingdom without legal permission.
- The actus reus of the offence was satisfied solely by her physical presence in the country, and the absence of mens rea did not absolve her of liability.
This approach is consistent with the principle of strict liability, where fault is not required to establish criminal responsibility.
Conclusion
R v Larsonneur [1933] remains one of the most striking illustrations of strict liability in English criminal law. The facts show a defendant who had complied with an order to leave the United Kingdom, only to be forced back against her will and punished for circumstances beyond her control. The judgement by Lord Hewart CJ made clear that under the Aliens Order 1920, presence alone was enough to establish guilt.
Despite its criticism, the case endures in legal education and discourse because it raises fundamental questions about justice, responsibility, and the limits of criminal law. Alongside later decisions like Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, it demonstrates how the principle of strict liability can produce outcomes that appear counterintuitive or unfair.
The case continues to be cited not only for its legal principles but also for the debates it generates about the nature of criminal culpability. In this sense, R v Larsonneur remains central to understanding both the strengths and weaknesses of strict liability as a doctrine in English criminal law.