Absolute liability means that no mens rea is required for the offence.

• A. Mens rea is required
• B. No mens rea is required for the offence; may involve status offences and the actus reus need not be voluntary
• C. The actus reus does not need to be voluntary
• D. The offender can never use due diligence as a defence

Answer: (B)

Absolute liability offenses strip away the mental-state requirement. The law imposes liability based solely on the prohibited act or the prohibited status, without needing the offender to have intended or known that their conduct was wrongful. That’s why the statement that no mens rea is required is the central idea.

The best answer captures this by saying there is no need for a mens rea, and that such offenses can involve being in a certain status and that the actus reus may not be voluntary. For example, some regulatory or status-based offences punish possession or existence (a person’s status or condition) rather than a deliberate intent to commit a wrongful act, and sometimes the prohibited conduct can occur even if the person did not voluntarily perform it.

It’s worth noting that depending on the statute, there may still be limited defenses or nuances (for instance, some regimes allow a narrow due-diligence defense in specific cases, though that is not universal for absolute liability).