Negligence refers to conduct that does not conform to what would be expected of a reasonable person. Along with intention and recklessness, negligence involves a failure to comply with an objective standard of conduct; that is, all of them are forms of fault. To prove negligence, the prosecution are not required to show that the accused failed to foresee a relevant risk; they only have to establish that D’s conduct failed to comply with a reasonable standard. A person is negligent if unable to comply with an objective standard of behaviour set by the law. This chapter deals with crimes of negligence and negligence as mens rea, negligence as the basis of liability, degrees of negligence, negligence as a form of culpable fault, and negligence and capacity.
Chapter
4. Crimes of negligence
Book
Jeremy Horder
Principles of Criminal Law takes a distinctly different approach to the study of criminal law, while still covering all of the vital topics found on criminal law courses. Uniquely theoretical, it seeks to elucidate the underlying principles and foundations of the criminal law, and aims to engage readers by analysing the law contextually. This tenth edition looks at issues such as the law’s history and criminal law values, alongside criminal conduct, actus reus, causation, and permissions; criminal capacity, mens rea, and fault, excusatory defences; homicide; non-fatal violations; property crimes; financial crimes; complicity; and inchoate offences. A special aim of the book is to bring an understanding of business activity—in particular small business activity—closer to the centre of the stage, in a discussion of the values protected by the criminal law and of the way in which the law shapes its principles, rules, and standards. A large proportion of criminal offences are drafted with the conduct of businesses, as well as individuals, in mind.
Chapter
4. Crimes of negligence
David Ormerod and Karl Laird
Negligence refers to conduct that does not conform to what would be expected of a reasonable person. Along with intention and recklessness, negligence involves a failure to comply with an objective standard of conduct; that is, all of them are forms of fault. To prove negligence, the prosecution is not required to show that the accused failed to foresee a relevant risk; it only has to establish that his conduct failed to comply with a reasonable standard. A person is negligent if he is not able to comply with an objective standard of behaviour set by the law. This chapter deals with crimes of negligence and negligence as mens rea, negligence as the basis of liability, degrees of negligence, negligence as a form of culpable fault, and negligence and capacity.
Chapter
12. Complicity
This chapter examines the issue of complicity. ‘Complicity’ arises when two or more people agree to commit an offence which is then committed by one or more of them, or when a person plays a supporting role in the commission of an offence. The discussions cover the distinction between principals (those who commit the crime itself) and accessories (those who assist or encourage its commission). The discussion involves addressing complex questions about the conduct element in complicity, the fault element in complicity, joint ventures, and accessorial liability for different results. Also covered are derivative liability, the ‘missing link’, and special defences to complicity. Finally, some elements of complicity bearing on offences of public order are discussed, to show their relevance to civil liberties.
Chapter
3. The elements of a crime: mens rea
David Ormerod and Karl Laird
This chapter examines the mens rea or mental fault of the accused. Because an actus reus is treated in law as a bad thing, an intention to cause it is, in law, a bad intention, a guilty mind. Similarly, consciously taking an unjustified risk of causing an actus reus—that is, recklessness—is also a bad state of mind. Unintentionally causing an actus reus by negligence may also be regarded as legally blameworthy. Each of these implies different degrees of ‘fault’. The chapter also discusses subjective and objective fault, intention in crimes other than murder, the distinction between motive and intention, subjective recklessness and malice, wilful blindness, suspicion and reasonable grounds to suspect, the correspondence principle and constructive crime, coincidence in time of actus reus and mens rea, ignorance of the law, absence of a ‘claim of right’ as an element in mens rea and proof of intention and foresight.
Chapter
3. Mens rea
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter reviews the mens rea elements of criminal offence. Mens rea means guilty mind, but the term is better thought of as the fault element of the offence. The role of mens rea is to attribute fault or blameworthiness (also called culpability) to the actus reus. The main types of mens rea are intention, recklessness, and negligence. Issues may arise when the mens rea and actus reus do not coincide in time. The doctrine of transferred malice allows mens rea to be transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim, in certain situations.
Chapter
4. Strict liability
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the crime of strict liability. A strict liability offence is one which does not require mens rea in respect of at least one element of the actus reus. Strict liability is often referred to as no-fault liability. Strict liability is very rare at common law. Where a statute is silent as to mens rea, the judge must interpret the provision to decide if the offence has mens rea (the starting point) or is one of strict liability. There is a debate about whether the imposition of criminal liability in the absence of proof of fault can be justified.
