Law 2101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Actus Reus, Criminal Negligence, Mens Rea
3 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Criminal Law – Lecture 2 Summary
MENS REA
2 components for most criminal offences – actus reus and mens rea, physical and mental
Reason for mental element – provides the moral component that justifies punishment
General rules:
Cthe mens rea usually has to go to all elements of the actus reus
Cmay also have offences where there is an additional mens rea element beyond A/R
CIf no m/r word (wilfully, knowingly, etc.) in definition, generally read in
Cthe actus reus and mens rea must coexist (overlap) at some point
CCrown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, usually does so indirectly by inference
Three types of mens rea:
1. Intent/Wilful blindness (highest form of MR) – subjective
2. Recklessness – subjective/objective
3. Criminal negligence – objective
1a. Intention = deliberate conduct, knowledge of circumstances, desired consequences
Subjective – what was actually in the accused’s mind
Intention does not include:
a. remoteness – how likely or unlikely something is to happen
b. knowledge of illegality – don’t need to know it’s illegal
c. degree of enthusiasm – don’t have to intend eagerly, just intend it
d. motive – the reason why you do something
while motive need not be proven, it is still a useful factor in a criminal case [Lewis]
see Duggan: claimed joke/prank, but still intended to take the canoe so had required intention
see Currie for illustration of subjective nature and contrast with wilful blindness
1b. Wilful blindness: accused treated in law as having intention even though really didn’t
arises only in special/narrow circumstances
accused deliberately shut his eyes because he doesn’t want the knowledge [Sansregret]
2. Recklessness – not good enough if the crime REQUIRES intention
has both subjective and objective components
Caccused foresees the risk (subjective)
Cunreasonably runs that risk (objective)
3. Criminal negligence is objective
similar to tort negligence, which involves conduct falling below that of a reasonable person, but
criminal negligence requires a marked departure from that objective standard
See Criminal Code, s . 219 – definition: conduct shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or
safety of others
Cs. 220 – creates offence of causing death by crim neg
Cs. 221 – creates offence of causing bodily harm by crim neg
see Hundal generally and Creighton for the point that an accused’s personal characteristics are not taken
into account, except for a mental incapacity to appreciate the nature of the risk
Document Summary
2 components for most criminal offences actus reus and mens rea, physical and mental. Reason for mental element provides the moral component that justifies punishment. C the mens rea usually has to go to all elements of the actus reus. C may also have offences where there is an additional mens rea element beyond a/r. If no m/r word (wilfully, knowingly, etc. ) in definition, generally read in the actus reus and mens rea must coexist (overlap) at some point. C crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, usually does so indirectly by inference. Intent/wilful blindness (highest form of mr) subjective. 1: recklessness subjective/objective, criminal negligence objective. Intention = deliberate conduct, knowledge of circumstances, desired consequences. Subjective what was actually in the accused"s mind. C: criminal negligence is objective similar to tort negligence, which involves conduct falling below that of a reasonable person, but criminal negligence requires a marked departure from that objective standard.
