Mens Rea (Cont.)

November 13,2007

What you need to know about mens rea:

Understand hierarchy of states of subjective mens rea

Statutory interpretation and default position

Meaning of intent/knowledge/ wilful blindness and recklessness

But motive may be important in evidence

Level of Mens Rea Read the statute to determine

whether mens rea is specified eg “wilfully” “intentionally” “knowingly”

If statute silent, recklessness is sufficient

What do these levels of Mens rea mean? Intention/knowledge/wilful blindness are

the highest Intention usually refers to consequences Knowledge/wilful blindness usually refer to

circumstances (See s. 155) If these words appear in statute,

recklessness will not suffice See case law for interpretation But note s. 429 definition of wilfully for

certain offences

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher Facts:Francophones trying to

establish francophone school in Essex County

Published a document to show how crazy was the opposition

Legislation and analysis of elements Charged under s. 319(2), ??? Elements??

Issue What does wilfully mean? Look to structure of legislation, (i) wilfully modifies promotion of

hatred (ii) contrast with 281.2(1) which is

also a true crime but where recklessness is sufficient

Buzzanga1. Tells us the meaning of wilfully, to desire to

bring about consequences or know that consequence substantially certain

2. Tells us about the use of objective evidence to determine subjective intent

“The greater the likelihood of the relevant consequences ensuing from the accused’s act, the easier it is to draw the inference that he intended those consequences. The purpose of this process, however, is to determine what the individual intended, not to fix him with the intention that a reasonable person might be assumed to have in the circumstances

Recklessness Recognize risk that actions may

cause this consequence or these circumstances exist but take risk anyway

Must be subjectively aware of the risk (eg possible this is not my wallet, possible that woman not consenting to sexual activity but take the risk anyway)

Wilful Blindness Suspicions aroused (re:

circumstances or that actions will cause consequences) but deliberately close eyes to risk, does not investigate further

Blondin Charged with importing cannabis

hidden in scuba tank Accused said knew something illegal

was in it but did not know what

What level of mr required and to what facts? It is a true crime, must know the

character of the forbidden substance Not enough to know it was

something illegal Recklessness was sufficient

Currie Approached in bar by stranger to

cash cheque, payees name on the back pays 19 year old Currie $5

Currie goes to bank, signs own name and gets the money

Currie Charged with unlawfully and

knowingly uttering a forged document with the intent to use it as genuine

Why wilful blindness necessary?

Trial judge said Should have inquired, should have

been suspicious (what s wrong with that?)

Convicted on the basis of wilful blindness

Court of Appeal Not enough to say suspicions should

have been aroused In order to impute knowledge,

require some state of actual awareness, actual suspiciousness

Sansregret Facts:2 incidents, From second occasion charges of

rape, b. and e., unlawful confinement, robbery, possession of weapon

Trial judge found He honestly believed she really was

consenting of her own free will

Elements of Offence of Rape Actus reus Conduct –sexual intercourse Circumstances-no consent

Consent Consent must be freely given and not arise from

threats or consent is negatived just appearance of consent(ar)

Mistake of fact defence is that the accused thought there was consent but was mistaken(mr)

Pappajohn an honest (even if unreasonable)belief in consent negates the mens rea

Therefore,if accused honestly but mistakenly believed consent freely given, not through threats, no mr

Dilemma in this case Macintyre J would have convicted on

recklessness but this conflicts with findings of fact at trial of honest mistake

TJ also used wilful blindness, but not in the technical sense, more like “should have known”

Recklessness distinguished from wilful blindness

Wilful blindness Requires awareness of need for

further inquiry Application to the facts here

problematic Cannot simultaneously have an

honest belief in consent and find him wilfully blind as to consent

Comment on Sansregret Discussion of wilful blindness sounds like

gross negligence Illustrates problems with requiring subjective

test for some crimes Sansregret one of the factors leading to

change in the law regarding mistaken belief in consent

Now cannot claim mistake unless the accused has taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the accused was consenting

The (in)significance of motive. Motive is: Why the actor acted Not the same as intention Ordinarily not an aspect of mens rea Crimes with no motive may still be

intentional

Lewis Facts: Lewis mailed a kettle bomb

that killed Tatlay’s daughter and charged with murder

No evidence of motive

Propositions

“In most criminal trials ..the Court is concerned, relates to ‘intent’ ie the exercise of free will to use particular means to produce a particular result, rather than with “motive” ie that which precedes and induces the exercise of the will. The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no reference to motive”

Propositions (cont) Motive is always relevant evidence

and admissible Motive is legally irrelevant Motive is a question of fact The significance of motive depends

on the case (cf Tatlay and Lewis)

Application to facts Mens rea issue is whether Lewis

mailed the package with the knowledge of its contents, then specific intent to kill arises by inference