COULD BE:
- Morality
- Fault (again?)
FAULT
Fault can be defined as blameworthiness and is arguably the basis of all
liability. An act is generally considered to have to be accompanied by
fault in order to amount to a crime, therefore without fault, it is fair to
say that liability would not occur. For example, if I pick up a gun and
shoot someone who dies as a result, I have directly caused their harm
and am at fault; it is only fair that I should be responsible for their death.
However, there are two types of offence that do not require fault, that of
strict and absolute liability which exist in order to deter those crimes
from being committed, such as in the case of Callow v Tillstone. Fault is
necessary to justify sentencing, as it is unfair to penalise someone for an
action that was not their fault. However, it is arguably unfair that
someone who is not at fault for the crime, i.e when they don’t have the
mens rea required, should be liable, such as in these strict liability cases.
Although fault is the basis of criminal law, these offences don’t require
fault or blameworthiness, as they don’t necessarily- in my opinion- seek
to carry out justice, but rather to regulate and protect society.
Additionally, different crimes require different levels of fault. For
example, basic intent crimes such as assault, battery or ABH require a
significantly lower level of fault than those required in specific intent
crimes such as in s.20 GBH. However, this is not always upheld, as the
maximum sentence of both ABH and s.20 GBH are the same despite the
different levels of fault. Here, fault is reflected in the mens rea of the
offence, as different offences require different levels of intention to be
satisfied. In ABH, for example, the mens rea (fault/intention) is to
recklessly intentionally inflict ABH on another through assault of
battery, for the crime of GBH, different levels of fault are shown through
different mens rea, and this distinguishes s.20 GBH (recklessness) and
S.18 GBH (intention to inflict GBH.)
- Morality
- Fault (again?)
FAULT
Fault can be defined as blameworthiness and is arguably the basis of all
liability. An act is generally considered to have to be accompanied by
fault in order to amount to a crime, therefore without fault, it is fair to
say that liability would not occur. For example, if I pick up a gun and
shoot someone who dies as a result, I have directly caused their harm
and am at fault; it is only fair that I should be responsible for their death.
However, there are two types of offence that do not require fault, that of
strict and absolute liability which exist in order to deter those crimes
from being committed, such as in the case of Callow v Tillstone. Fault is
necessary to justify sentencing, as it is unfair to penalise someone for an
action that was not their fault. However, it is arguably unfair that
someone who is not at fault for the crime, i.e when they don’t have the
mens rea required, should be liable, such as in these strict liability cases.
Although fault is the basis of criminal law, these offences don’t require
fault or blameworthiness, as they don’t necessarily- in my opinion- seek
to carry out justice, but rather to regulate and protect society.
Additionally, different crimes require different levels of fault. For
example, basic intent crimes such as assault, battery or ABH require a
significantly lower level of fault than those required in specific intent
crimes such as in s.20 GBH. However, this is not always upheld, as the
maximum sentence of both ABH and s.20 GBH are the same despite the
different levels of fault. Here, fault is reflected in the mens rea of the
offence, as different offences require different levels of intention to be
satisfied. In ABH, for example, the mens rea (fault/intention) is to
recklessly intentionally inflict ABH on another through assault of
battery, for the crime of GBH, different levels of fault are shown through
different mens rea, and this distinguishes s.20 GBH (recklessness) and
S.18 GBH (intention to inflict GBH.)
