Where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then a fortiori there&#39;s liability for intention or recklessness?
<p>I accept  <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Law-Concentrate-Revision-Study-dp-0198854986/dp/0198854986/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Concentrate Criminal Law</em> (2020 7 edn)</a> p. 31</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So, it is generally thought that intention is the most serious
kind of <em>mens rea</em>, recklessness the next most serious, and negligence the least serious.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Simester-Sullivans-Criminal-Law-Doctrine-dp-1509926682/dp/1509926682/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Simester and Sullivan's Criminal Law</em> (2019 7 edn)</a>. p 166.</p>
<blockquote>
<h2>(i) The test for negligence</h2>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Even though negligence permits the finding of fault for inadvertent wrongdoing, it does
not actually matter whether the defendant attends to or contemplates the risks. As Glanville
Williams asserts, “the essential question, at any rate for legal purposes, is whether it was
reasonable for you to go ahead with your conduct in the circumstances”.188 Of course, normally
one who foresees and runs an unreasonable risk will be reckless as well as negligent.
Negligence does not, however, <em>require</em> inadvertence. This is for two reasons. <strong>[Quote 1] The first is that
in the criminal law, the lesser fault standard incorporates the greater.</strong> A defendant should
not be able to exculpate herself by pleading that her actions were reckless or intentional
rather than negligent. (Similarly, she should be unable to escape an allegation of recklessness
by pleading that her actions were intended.) <strong>[Quote 2] It follows that where negligence is enough
for criminal liability, then, <em>a fortiori</em>, there is liability for intention or recklessness.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>p 167.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&amp;nsbp; &amp;nsbp; &amp;nsbp; The second reason is that, as we mentioned earlier, a defendant can foresee the actus
reus without being reckless, yet may still be negligent. For example, an anaesthetist who
recognises there is a slight risk of killing his patient is not normally reckless. But if he
has unknowingly miscalculated the dose, then he is negligent even though not reckless.
Recklessness involves an objective assessment of running the subjectively perceived risk.
Negligence involves an objective assessment of running an objectively recognisable risk.<sup>189</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Law-Directions-Nicola-Monaghan-dp-0198848781/dp/0198848781/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Criminal Law Directions</em> (2020 6 edn)</a>. p 76.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Negligence is a much wider fault element than intention or
recklessness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Down the same page.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At common law, negligence is rarely sufficient for criminal liability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How are the two embolded quotes above true?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How does &quot;the lesser fault standard&quot; incorporate the greater?</p>
</li>
<li><p>How can &quot;where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a <em>fortiori</em>, there is liability for intention or recklessness&quot;? You can be negligent without being reckless or intent.</p>
</li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
<p>How does &quot;the lesser fault standard&quot; incorporate the greater?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If a little bit of fault makes you guilty, then surely a lot of fault does.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How can &quot;where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness&quot;? You can be negligent without being reckless or intent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Exactly. So if mere negligence is enough, certainly the worse cases of being reckless or intentional are clearly enough.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At common law, negligence is rarely sufficient for criminal liability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Negligence being a very small fault is usually not enough to trigger criminal liability which is generally more serious than civil liability.</p>

<h2>If the law says that a negligent person is guilty, then one who is negligent <em>or</em> reckless <em>or</em> intentional is guilty.</h2>
<p>The fault standard for guilt can be negligence, recklessness or intentionality. Recklessness includes intentional acts. Negligence includes reckless and intentional acts. That's how &quot;the lesser fault standard incorporates the greater.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, <em>a fortiori</em>, there is liability for intention or recklessness.&quot; This means you are guilty if you are negligent <em>or</em> reckless <em>or</em> act intentionally. Yes intentional harm is the most serious - that's why it's captured by the lesser standard.</p>

criminal-law england-and-wales