Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea

Answer 1

• Mental state required to make out an offence.
• Crown must establish the requisite fault element for the offence beyond reasonable doubt to make out a conviction

Question 2

Subjective vs Objective Fault

Answer 2

• Subjective fault = what was actually in the mind of the accused at the relevant time.
• Objective fault = whether his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Question 3

Buzzanga & Duroschers

Answer 3

• Accused of willfully promoting hatred against Francophones by publishing satirical content, he himself was a Francophone

Question 4

R v. Lewis
Is Motive Necessary

Answer 4

Intention vs Motive
- Intention and motive are different.
- Mental element of an offence is concerned with “intent,” i.e. the exercise of free will to achieve a particular result
- Motive, on the other hand, is logically prior to “intent”.
- Motive is “that which precedes and induces the exercise of the will”
- Motive is not mens rea

Question 5

R v. Hibbert

Answer 5

• The court concludes that “purpose” means intent only, not desire
• This means that duress will not usually negate mens rea
• In cases where an individual acts under duress, they can argue that the defence of duress should apply as an affirmative defence

Question 6

R v. Théroux

Answer 6

• Two points to be made about mens rea here:
  (1) the inquiry into mens rea, or the guilty mind, has nothing to do with the accused’s value system
  (2) Crown need not always show precisely what was in the accused’s mind at the relevant time
• Elements of the MR
  * Subjective awareness that one was engaging in deceit, falsehood or dishonest act which would cause deprivation or a risk thereof
  * Knowingly undertaking the acts aware that deprivation or risk thereof could follow as a likely consequence

Question 7

R v. Sansregret

Answer 7

• Court distinguishes recklessness from negligence
• Negligence is a civil law concept; does not generally have a place in determining criminal liability
• Recklessness has an element of the subjective
  -The culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while wilful blindness is justified by the accused’s fault in deliberately failing to inquire where he knows there is a reason for inquiry

Question 8

R v. Briscoe

Answer 8

• Wilful blindness can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the MR
• WB imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to a point where he sees the need to make further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to

Question 9

R v. Creighton

Answer 9

Two issues:
(1) Constitutionality of unlawful act manslaughter provisions of the
Criminal Code; and
(2) Fault requirement for unlawful act manslaughter
- Creighton could have reasonably foreseen that injecting cocaine could have led to death

Question 10

R v. Beatty

Answer 10

• Accused of reckless driving leading to 3 deaths, eye witnesses state he wasn’t driving recklessly, there was no marked departure from a reasonable person