1. Criminal Law Introduction to Mens Rea, October 31, 2007

2. Mens Rea Mental component justifies punishment Desribed as “fault” Makes offender morally blameworthy For analytic purposes, same conceptual framework as actus reus: conduct, circumstances, consequences

3. Cases demonstrate general principles Beaver: subjective fault the starting point Lewis: motive different than mens rea Sault Ste Marie:presumption of real crimes (contrast with provincial offences) that fault is subjective not objective Buzzanga: meaning of wilfully Blondin:where statute silent, reckless will suffice, must relate to the elements Currie, Sansregret: distinguish recklessness, wilful blindness and negligence

4. General Principles Different levels of fault required for different offences and elements within offences Look first to the words of the statute If not specified, judges to identify what level of fault Parliament intended General rule, subjective fault required for true crimes For some crimes objective fault enough (community standard) Caution : distinguish “must have known” from “should have known”

5. Levels of Subjective Mens Rea Intention/Knowledge/Wilful Blinness Recklessness

6. R. v. Beaver Facts:

7. Rule The essence of the crime is the possession of the forbidden substance and in a criminal case there is in law no possession without knowledge of the character of the forbidden substance. Just as in R. v. Ashwell (1885), 18 Q.B.D. 190, the accused did not in law have possession of the complainant’s sovereign so long as he honestly believed it to be a shilling so in my illustration X did not have possession of heroin so long as he honestly believed the package to contain baking soda. … It would, of course, be within the power of Parliament to enact that a person who, without any guilty knowledge, had in his physical possession a package which he honestly believed to contain a harmless substance such as baking soda but which in fact Contained heroin, must on proof of such facts be convicted of a crime and sentenced to at least 6 months' imprisonment; but I would refuse to impute such an intention to Parliament unless the words of the statute were clear and admitted of no other interpretation.

8. Sault Ste Marie Facts:

9. Analysis Start with the words of the statute Historical distinction between true crimes and crimes of absolute liability Crown must prove different things Starting point, true crimes require subjective fault New category created with strict liability offences