Chapter 6 - The Fault Requirement Flashcards
What is the mens rea?
The criminal intent/frame of mind necessary for the specific crime which the Crown must prove BRD
In the case of true crimes, there is a presumption that
A person should not be held liable for their acts if they lack the requisite mens rea
the Mens rea may be either
An intent to do the prohibited act, or a recklessness that results in the prohibited consequences
Some crimes require ___ intent, give example
specific (ex. murder. intent to kill or cause harm that the actor subjectively knows is likely to result in death)
What kind of crime does not require a particular state of mind?
Negligence
Define “absolute liability”
Where the act, if proven, will result in a guilty conviction, regardless of the actor’s state of mind
Under common law, crimes are presumed to have an ___ fault requirement + definition
Subjective: dependent upon the individuals circumstance and mental state at the moment the act was done
What kind of crime will require an objective mens rea?
Negligence. A reasonable person would have not allowed whatever the negligent actor allowed to happen/did not prevent.
When applying the objective standard, this is the only individualized type of factor that will be taken into account
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)
R v Hundal established that
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
Under the objective standard, unacceptable behaviour is defined by
a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person
Which case established the mental aspect of the mens reas?
R v Thouroux
What was the ratio of R v Theroux?
The actus reus has its own mental element; the act must be the voluntary act of the accused for the actus reus to exist.
The definition of Mens Rea is ___, it is designed to protect ___
the guilty mind, the morally innocent
When establishing if the requisite mens rea has been met, the questions that are asked include:
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?
ordinarily for criminal offences, the mens rea will be held to the ___ standard
subjective
What 2 types of offences will have an objective standard?
negligence and absolute liability
In some cases, the act itself can infer __
awareness of the consequences
the case of R v Mulligan established that
What a person does is often the best indication of what is in their mind
The intent of the accused can be drawn from
What they say and do in the act and how they testify, if they choose to testify (R v Mulligan)
In the case of Ortt, the judge stated that ___, this was held to be an error on appeal
a person is P[RESUMED to intend the natural consequences of their actions
In stead of a presumption it is a ___ that a person intends ___
reasonable inference, the natural consequence of their actions (Ortt)
As found in R v Walle, a Judge and jury are permitted to make
common sense inferences that a sane person intends the natural consequence of their actions
Name the 3 subjective states of mind that make up (most) criminal liability
- Intention, 2. Wilfull Blindness, 3.Recklessness
What is the distinction between regulatory and criminal offences with regards to their spheres of concern?
Criminal offences establish the outer bounds of what is considered to be acceptable, whereas regulatory offences establish an absolute minimum of what is acceptable
Until ___ case, the Courts could decide whether the Crown must prove either ___ or ___ as the mental element
Sault Ste Marie., absolute liability or subjective mens rea
The seminal case of Saulte Ste. Marie established that
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.
Name the 3 type of liability, and what justifies their use
- 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)
The significance of the Wholesale Travel Case is that
Regulation cannot establish de facto absolute liability (did not account for the accuser’s knowledge that they had violated the regulation)
Reference re: section 94 subsection 2 of the motor vehicle act (B.C.) Established that
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
This section of the Charter was instrumental in deciding Reference re: section 94 subsection 2 of the motor vehicle act (B.C.)
Sec 7 Which guarantees life liberty and security of person
