R v Larsonneur is a leading criminal law case from England and Wales that is commonly cited to explain how actus reus operates in strict liability offences. The decision shows that, in certain statutory offences, criminal liability can arise even when the accused has no control over the circumstances leading to the offence.
The case has remained important for students and readers of criminal law because it highlights the limits of voluntariness as a defence when Parliament creates offences that focus only on a prohibited state of affairs. This case brief explains the facts, legal framework, decision, and criticism in a clear and simple manner, strictly based on the provided references.
Background and Legal Context
The case arose under the Aliens Order 1920, a statutory framework regulating the entry, stay, and removal of foreign nationals from the United Kingdom. The Order empowered the Secretary of State to control who could land in the UK and under what conditions. It also made it a criminal offence for an alien to be “found in the United Kingdom” after permission to land had been refused or revoked.
Under the Order and its amendments, an endorsement could be placed in a foreign national’s passport requiring departure from the UK within a specified time. Failure to comply with such a direction could lead to detention, arrest, and criminal prosecution. Importantly, the offence focused on the fact of being found in the UK, rather than the manner in which the individual entered or returned.
Facts of R v Larsonneur Case
In R v Larsonneur, the accused, Marie Larsonneur, was a French national who was initially granted permission to land in the United Kingdom subject to certain conditions. These conditions were formally endorsed on her passport. After her arrival, the conditions were amended, and she was required to leave the UK by a specified date.
Larsonneur complied with this requirement and travelled to the Irish Free State before the deadline expired. However, after her arrival there, the executive authorities of the Irish Free State issued a deportation order against her. As a result of this order, she was forcibly returned to Holyhead under police custody.
Upon arrival in Holyhead, she was handed over to the UK police and detained. She was then charged and convicted for being an alien whose leave to land had been refused and who was found in the United Kingdom, contrary to Articles 1(3)(g) and 18(1)(b) of the Aliens Order 1920, as amended.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue in R v Larsonneur was whether a person could be criminally liable for being “found in the United Kingdom” when their presence in the country was involuntary. The defence argued that criminal liability should not arise where the accused had no control over her return to the UK and had not voluntarily entered or remained in the country after her permission expired.
The question before the Court of Criminal Appeal was therefore whether the offence required proof of a voluntary act of entering or remaining in the UK, or whether mere presence was sufficient under the statute.
Arguments on Appeal
On appeal, counsel for the appellant argued that the mere fact of being found in the United Kingdom after the expiry of permission was not enough to constitute an offence. It was submitted that the prosecution should also be required to prove that the accused had landed in the UK in contravention of the Order.
The defence emphasised that Larsonneur had not voluntarily landed in the United Kingdom. Instead, she had been returned by a superior force, namely the authorities of the Irish Free State, over which she had no control. As such, it was argued that the essential element of actus reus was missing because her presence in the UK was involuntary.
Decision and Reasoning in R v Larsonneur
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. In R v Larsonneur, Lord Hewart CJ accepted the Crown’s submission that the manner in which the accused came to be in the United Kingdom was irrelevant. The court held that under Article 1(4) of the Aliens Order 1920, as amended, Larsonneur was deemed to be an alien whose landing had been prohibited by the Secretary of State because she was found in the UK after the date specified in the passport endorsement.
The court concluded that the offence was complete once she was found in the United Kingdom in breach of the Order. It did not matter that she had been returned against her will. The statutory offence imposed strict liability, and therefore no requirement existed to prove voluntariness or fault in relation to her presence in the country.
Strict Liability and Actus Reus
R v Larsonneur is particularly significant because it illustrates how actus reus can operate in strict liability offences. In most criminal offences, liability requires a voluntary act. However, in this case, the offence focused solely on a prohibited state of affairs: being found in the UK without lawful permission.
The court treated the offence as one where Parliament intended to exclude considerations of voluntariness. As long as the prohibited situation existed, criminal liability followed. This approach demonstrates how strict liability offences can override traditional principles that normally protect individuals from punishment for involuntary conduct.
Conclusion
R v Larsonneur stands as a clear illustration of strict liability in UK criminal law and its impact on the concept of actus reus. The Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision confirms that, under the Aliens Order 1920, criminal liability could arise simply from being found in the United Kingdom after permission to remain had expired, regardless of how that situation came about.
While the case has been criticised for its harshness, it continues to play a vital role in understanding the boundaries of criminal responsibility under statutory offences.