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
Chapter
3. Mens rea: blameworthy states of mind
This chapter focuses on mens rea (MR) and discusses some of the components of MR, which include intention, recklessness, negligence, and gross negligence. It explains that intention can be direct or oblique and that recklessness may be defined as the conscious taking of an unjustified risk. It also explains how to distinguish between negligence and gross negligence. The chapter examines the concept of strict liability in the context of criminal law and discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and MR, evaluating arguments for and against strict liability, and considering the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention.
Book
David Ormerod CBE, QC (Hon) and Karl Laird
This book, in its 16th edition, has been completely updated to include all legislative and case law developments and detailed analysis of the many recent developments since the last edition. The material on dishonesty has been rewritten to take account of developments following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos. The book begins with an introduction of definitions of crime and an explanation of the sources of criminal law followed by detailed analysis of the elements of a crime (actus reus and mens rea) including negligence and strict liability. Secondary liability is examined with an emphasis on analysing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jogee, before exploring corporate and vicarious liability. Mental condition defences and the Law Commission’s proposals to reform them are examined alongside issues relating to mistake and intoxication. A comprehensive review of general defences includes the Court of Appeal’s controversial approach to self-defence in householder cases. The final chapter of the general part provides a detailed review of inchoate offences. The second part of the book examines specific offences including murder, manslaughter, other homicide offences, non-fatal offences, sexual offences, theft and robbery, and considers the Fraud Act 2006, burglary, offences of damages to property, offences against public order and road traffic offences.
Chapter
5. Crimes of strict liability
Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, a person will be criminally liable even if they could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence, and statutory due diligence defences.
Chapter
3. The elements of a crime: mens rea
This chapter examines the mens rea, or mental fault, of the defendant. Because an actus reus is treated in law as a bad thing, an intention to cause it is, in law, a bad intention, ie 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, the difference between knowledge and belief, wilful blindness, and suspicion and reasonable grounds to suspect. It then goes on to consider the correspondence principle and constructive crime, transferred malice (or transferred mens rea), coincidence in time of actus reus and mens rea, ignorance of the law, mistake of law, absence of a ‘claim of right’ as an element in mens rea, and proof of intention and foresight.
Chapter
R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
4. Negligence and strict liability
Michael J. Allen and Ian Edwards
Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the meaning of negligence, arguments for and against negligence as a basis for criminal liability, the meaning of strict liability, the origins of strict liability, justifications for strict liability, identifying offences of strict liability, the presumption of mens rea in offences of strict liability, defences to strict liability, and strict liability and the European Convention on Human Rights. A Law in Context feature examines critically the use of strict liability as the basis for liability in the offence of paying for the sexual services of a person who has been subject to exploitation.
Chapter
4. Negligence and strict liability
Michael J. Allen and Ian Edwards
Course-focused and contextual, Criminal Law provides a succinct overview of the key areas on the law curriculum balanced with thought-provoking contextual discussion. This chapter discusses the meaning of negligence, arguments for and against negligence as a basis for criminal liability, the meaning of strict liability, the origins of and justifications for strict liability, the presumption of mens rea in offences of strict liability, defences to strict liability, and strict liability and the European Convention on Human Rights. The feaeture ‘The law in context’ examines critically the use of strict liability as the basis for liability in the offence of paying for the sexual services of a person who has been subject to exploitation.
Chapter
3. Mens Rea: The Mental Element
Mens rea is the legal term used to describe the element of a criminal offence that relates to the defendant’s mental state. Different crimes have different mentes reae: some require intention, others recklessness, negligence, or knowledge. Some crimes do not require proof of any mental state of the defendant. It has often been suggested that mens rea plays the crucial role of ensuring that only blameworthy defendants are punished for their crimes; however, a defendant’s blameworthiness or state of mind is only part of the picture. This chapter considers the following concepts that are used throughout criminal law: (a) intention; (b) recklessness; (c) negligence; and (d) knowledge.
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
3. Mens Rea: The Mental Element
Mens rea is the legal term used to describe the element of a criminal offence that relates to the defendant’s mental state. Different crimes have different mentes reae: some require intention, others recklessness, negligence, or knowledge. Some crimes do not require proof of any mental state of the defendant. It has often been suggested that mens rea plays the crucial role of ensuring that only blameworthy defendants are punished for their crimes; however, a defendant’s blameworthiness or state of mind is only part of the picture. This chapter considers the following concepts that are used throughout criminal law: (a) intention; (b) recklessness; (c) negligence; and (d) knowledge.
Chapter
5. Fault
This chapter considers the different types of fault required by criminal law. It examines the definitions and/or applications of the following concepts: intention, recklessness, malice, knowledge, and negligence.
Chapter
3. Mens rea
David Ormerod and John Child
This chapter provides an overview of mens rea, loosely translated as ‘guilty mind’. Whereas the concept of actus reus focuses on the external elements of an offence, mens rea focuses on state of mind or fault. The mens rea of the offence describes the fault element with which D acted: D intended, believed, foresaw as a risk the proscribed element(s), and so on. The chapter first considers how offences differ in the role mens rea plays. For some offences, a mens rea element may be required in relation to each actus reus element; for other offences there are actus reus elements that do not have a corresponding mens rea and vice versa. The chapter moves on to discuss the legal meaning of central mens rea terms such as ‘intention’, ‘negligence’, ‘dishonesty’, and ‘recklessness’. Finally, it outlines reform debates, and a structure for analysing the mens rea of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter.
Chapter
5. Homicide
This chapter discusses homicide in the criminal law, which can be divided into the following categories: murder, manslaughter, infanticide, and a number of specific offences concerned with causing death while driving—with the first two categories being by far the most important. It considers suicide pacts, mercy killing, and euthanasia; homicide statistics; non-homicide killings; and diminished responsibility. Significant academic and political energy is put into homicide law, considering the relatively few homicide offences that take place each year. What this reveals is that the law’s approach to homicide has great symbolic importance in both political and legal terms.
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
5. Crimes of strict liability
David Ormerod and Karl Laird
Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, the accused will be criminally liable even if he could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to tender evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence and statutory due diligence defences.
Chapter
5. Homicide
This chapter discusses homicide in the criminal law, which can be divided into the following categories: murder, manslaughter, infanticide, and a number of specific offences concerned with causing death while driving—with the first two categories being by far the most important. It considers suicide pacts, mercy killing, and euthanasia; homicide statistics; non-homicide killings; and diminished responsibility. Significant academic and political energy is put into homicide law, considering the relatively few homicide offences that take place each year. What this reveals is that the law’s approach to homicide has great symbolic importance in both political and legal terms.
Book
David Ormerod, Karl Laird, and Matthew Gibson
This textbook, now in its 17th edition, has been completely updated to include all recent legislative and case law developments, together with detailed analysis of those developments. Part I begins with an introduction to criminal law, with reference to definitions, context, and sources, followed by discussion of the elements of a crime (actus reus and mens rea), before moving on to considering crimes of negligence and strict liability. It then assesses accessorial liability, along with corporate and vicarious liability. Subsequently, it discusses mental condition defences, alongside issues relating to mistake and intoxication, as well as general defences. The final chapter of Part I provides a detailed review of inchoate offences. Part II examines specific offences, beginning with murder, manslaughter, and other homicide and related offences. Next, it focuses on non-fatal offences and sexual offences. It then reviews a range of property, fraud, and related offences, notably: theft, robbery, offences of temporary deprivation, making off without payment, general and ancillary fraud offences, blackmail, burglary, handling stolen goods, and offences of damages to property. Finally, a range of online chapters address computer misuse, forgery, obscene communication and publication offences, offences against public order, road traffic offences, money laundering, and offensive weapons.
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.
