Notes

Furthermore, criminal law recognises different levels of fault. All offences require a mens rea and therefore a degree of mental awareness is required for the defendant to be found guilty. Criminal law recognises various states of mind, the most blameworthy of which is direct intention. Direct intention means that it is the defendant’s main aim to bring about the criminal consequence, which means they are highly culpable for the crime they commit. The most serious offences, such as murder and S.18 offences against the person act 1861 require this most blameworthy state of mind as they are specific intent offences, meaning that only intention is sufficient for the mens rea. A lower level of fault is recklessness, which now is subjective (since R v G) which means the risk of bringing about the criminal consequence must cross the defendant’s mind. If they consider their actions and continue regardless then they should be held responsible for the consequences. Such rules are clearly fault based and are an improvement on the earlier ruling in the case of Caldwell where the test was objective. This meant if a reasonable person would have seen the risk it is irrelevant the defendant did not. This would be particularly unjust in cases involving children and those with learning difficulties as they could be liable despite not being at fault.