CRM 200 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Culpable Homicide

• School: Ryerson University
• Department: Criminology
• Course: CRM 200
• Professor: Daniel Alati

Document Summary

The relation of the fault element to the prohibited act: the fault element typically (but not always) must be related to certain consequences or circumstances, r. v. creighton (1993, section 222(5)(a) Common law presumptions of mens rea: supreme court has been reluctant to constitutionalize subjective mens rea for all but the most serious crimes, r. v. beaver (1957, r. v. sault ste. Marie (city) (1978): unless parliament clearly indicates otherwise, courts should presume that criminal offences require some form of subjective mens rea. Constitutional requirements of mens rea: requirements of subjective fault in relation to. Constitutional requirements of mens rea: principles of fundamental justice as outlined in creighton. Malmo-levine (2003): the idea that those causing harm intentionally must be punished more severely than those causing harm unintentionally. Fault elements in relation to the defences of mistake of fact and intoxication: distinguishing between defences of mistake of fact and intoxication vs. excusatory defences such as self-defence.