In the context of R v Wholesale Travel Group, what can a defendant claim to avoid strict liability?

In the context of R v Wholesale Travel Group, to avoid strict liability, a defendant can claim that they acted reasonably under the circumstances. This concept stems from the recognition that strict liability offenses can impose liability without the need for intent or negligence; however, the law allows for a defense based on due diligence.

Demonstrating reasonable actions can help a defendant argue that they took adequate steps to prevent the occurrence of the prohibited act, thus negating the strict liability. This aligns with the principle that the law recognizes that not every violation should result in liability, especially if the defendant can demonstrate that they made all reasonable efforts to comply with the law.

The other options do not provide valid defenses to strict liability. Being unaware of the law or claiming that the law is unconstitutional generally does not absolve individuals from liability; ignorance of the law is typically not accepted as a defense. Similarly, possessing a valid license does not necessarily negate liability, especially since the license could be irrelevant to the specific offense being charged. Therefore, the appropriate avenue for a defendant seeking to avoid liability in this context is by proving that they acted reasonably under the circumstances.