! !

!""#$%&$'"()$*"+$

! !

OVERVIEW
Mens Rea + Actus Reus Mens Rea is concerned with consequences of prohibited act (Actus Reus) Ex. Murder as a voluntary act o Prohibited act/Actus Reus = murder o Fault element/Mens Rea = intent to cause death Mens Rea o Focus on subjective capacity of accused ! Could (s)he have foreseen the consequences of the act? ! Did (s)he intend to cause harm? o Why is I didnt mean to not a good defence?

R v Theroux []

Common Law Presumptions Judge made common law When statutes lack clear definitions Upload requirements for Mens Rea o Intentionality, Recklessness, Knowledge, Willful Blindness Criminal offences require Mens Rea in relation to Actus Reus o Unless Parliament indicates otherwise

R v Sault Ste Marie []

Criminalized Fault Fault element in criminal law is different than in civil law o Mens Rea (especially in criminal law) ! Focus on mental state of the accused ! Requires proof of intent or recklessness o Negligence (especially in civil law) ! Less focus on mental state of accused ! Conduct assessed against objective standard reasonable person ! Question of reasonable care, not intent o Why does this distinction matter? Marked Departure o When should the departure from a certain standard of care be criminalized? o If it is not a marked departure, it is a civil case (private law matter) o If it is a marked departure, it is a criminal case (public law) o Risk of over criminalizing

R v Beatty []

SUBJECTIVE MENS REA

Subjective Fault Question of whether accused had guilty knowledge / intent Crown must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Question of fact, now law (jury can decide)

! !

!""#$%&$'"()$*"+$

! !

Subjective Mens Rea Intent, purpose, or willfulness Degrees of subjective Mens Rea matter May not have intent, but might have subjective knowledge of consequences Difference between guilty intent and guilty knowledge o Ex. Accused engages in prohibited act, but does so to avoid harm. Driving Robbers to bank, at gunpoint

R v Hibbert []

OBJECTIVE OF MENS REA

Subjective: (s)he knew it was wrong Objective: anybody in that position would have known it was wrong Use objective standard to establish subjective fault o What would a reasonable person have done? Meant to prevent conviction of accused who might lack knowledge and foresight Objective Mens Rea For offences less serious than murder Problem with objective standard: o Who is a reasonable person? o Can it be modified to apply without it becoming a subjective standard? Personal characteristics are not important unless they create an incapacity to appreciate the risk (Roach p. 195) o Ex. Illiteracy leading to mishandling illiterate person in charge of toxic chemicals

Revisit: R v Hibbert & Beatty

RECAP / NEXT CLASS

State v. George Zimmerman Zimmerman accused of 2nd degree murder Prosecution (state) in closing statements o Addressing jury o Arguing that prohibited act arises from ill will (intent) Defence: Zimmerman acted in self defence Outcome: Zimmerman found innocent Recap Courts decide fault Questions of face Consequences of prohibited act Requires proof of intent or recklessness Guilty intent / guilty knowledge Objective Mens Rea and personal characteristics