Chapter 6 - The Fault Requirement Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the mens rea?

A

The criminal intent/frame of mind necessary for the specific crime which the Crown must prove BRD

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

In the case of true crimes, there is a presumption that

A

A person should not be held liable for their acts if they lack the requisite mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

the Mens rea may be either

A

An intent to do the prohibited act, or a recklessness that results in the prohibited consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Some crimes require ___ intent, give example

A

specific (ex. murder. intent to kill or cause harm that the actor subjectively knows is likely to result in death)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What kind of crime does not require a particular state of mind?

A

Negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define “absolute liability”

A

Where the act, if proven, will result in a guilty conviction, regardless of the actor’s state of mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Under common law, crimes are presumed to have an ___ fault requirement + definition

A

Subjective: dependent upon the individuals circumstance and mental state at the moment the act was done

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What kind of crime will require an objective mens rea?

A

Negligence. A reasonable person would have not allowed whatever the negligent actor allowed to happen/did not prevent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When applying the objective standard, this is the only individualized type of factor that will be taken into account

A

Any factor that relates to that person’s incapacity (ex. a mentally ill person will not be judged to the standard of a reasonable person)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Hundal established that

A

the difference between the objective and subjective standard, and that the tires of fact may draw reasonable inferences as to the accused’s state of mind from their words and deeds during the act and in the witness box

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Under the objective standard, unacceptable behaviour is defined by

A

a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case established the mental aspect of the mens reas?

A

R v Thouroux

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the ratio of R v Theroux?

A

The actus reus has its own mental element; the act must be the voluntary act of the accused for the actus reus to exist.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The definition of Mens Rea is ___, it is designed to protect ___

A

the guilty mind, the morally innocent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

When establishing if the requisite mens rea has been met, the questions that are asked include:

A

Did the accused intend to cause the consequences that occurred or in the case of some crimes if he didn’t intend to cause the consequences was he reckless or wilfully blind and therefore caused the consequences?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

ordinarily for criminal offences, the mens rea will be held to the ___ standard

A

subjective

17
Q

What 2 types of offences will have an objective standard?

A

negligence and absolute liability

18
Q

In some cases, the act itself can infer __

A

awareness of the consequences

19
Q

the case of R v Mulligan established that

A

What a person does is often the best indication of what is in their mind

20
Q

The intent of the accused can be drawn from

A

What they say and do in the act and how they testify, if they choose to testify (R v Mulligan)

21
Q

In the case of Ortt, the judge stated that ___, this was held to be an error on appeal

A

a person is P[RESUMED to intend the natural consequences of their actions

22
Q

In stead of a presumption it is a ___ that a person intends ___

A

reasonable inference, the natural consequence of their actions (Ortt)

23
Q

As found in R v Walle, a Judge and jury are permitted to make

A

common sense inferences that a sane person intends the natural consequence of their actions

24
Q

Name the 3 subjective states of mind that make up (most) criminal liability

A
  1. Intention, 2. Wilfull Blindness, 3.Recklessness
25
Q

What is the distinction between regulatory and criminal offences with regards to their spheres of concern?

A

Criminal offences establish the outer bounds of what is considered to be acceptable, whereas regulatory offences establish an absolute minimum of what is acceptable

26
Q

Until ___ case, the Courts could decide whether the Crown must prove either ___ or ___ as the mental element

A

Sault Ste Marie., absolute liability or subjective mens rea

27
Q

The seminal case of Saulte Ste. Marie established that

A

There was a middle ground between absolute liability and subjective mens rea. Whereas the Crown merely has to prove that the act was done by the accused, the accused is afforded the chance to prove (in a reverse onus) that they took all due diligence to ensure they would not violate the regulation.

28
Q

Name the 3 type of liability, and what justifies their use

A
  1. Absolute liability (must be dictated by legislation) 2. Strict liability (Crown proves act only, defence can prove due diligence, most regulatory offences) 3. Subjective mens rea (most criminal offences)
29
Q

The significance of the Wholesale Travel Case is that

A

Regulation cannot establish de facto absolute liability (did not account for the accuser’s knowledge that they had violated the regulation)

30
Q

Reference re: section 94 subsection 2 of the motor vehicle act (B.C.) Established that

A

An offence with the POSSIBILITY of improsonment as a punishment must have at least a standard of strict liability. It is not constitutional for an offence of absolute liability to result in improssnment

31
Q

This section of the Charter was instrumental in deciding Reference re: section 94 subsection 2 of the motor vehicle act (B.C.)

A

Sec 7 Which guarantees life liberty and security of person