Where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then a fortiori there's liability for intention or recklessness?

Question

I accept Concentrate Criminal Law (2020 7 edn) p. 31

So, it is generally thought that intention is the most serious kind of mens rea, recklessness the next most serious, and negligence the least serious.

Simester and Sullivan's Criminal Law (2019 7 edn). p 166.

(i) The test for negligence

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, require inadvertence. This is for two reasons. [Quote 1] The first is that in the criminal law, the lesser fault standard incorporates the greater. 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.) [Quote 2] It follows that where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness.

p 167.

&nsbp; &nsbp; &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.¹⁸⁹

Criminal Law Directions (2020 6 edn). p 76.

Negligence is a much wider fault element than intention or recklessness.

Down the same page.

At common law, negligence is rarely sufficient for criminal liability.

How are the two embolded quotes above true?

1. How does "the lesser fault standard" incorporate the greater?

2. How can "where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness"? You can be negligent without being reckless or intent.

Answer 1

How does "the lesser fault standard" incorporate the greater?

If a little bit of fault makes you guilty, then surely a lot of fault does.

How can "where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness"? You can be negligent without being reckless or intent.

Exactly. So if mere negligence is enough, certainly the worse cases of being reckless or intentional are clearly enough.

At common law, negligence is rarely sufficient for criminal liability.

Negligence being a very small fault is usually not enough to trigger criminal liability which is generally more serious than civil liability.

Answer 2

If the law says that a negligent person is guilty, then one who is negligent or reckless or intentional is guilty.

The fault standard for guilt can be negligence, recklessness or intentionality. Recklessness includes intentional acts. Negligence includes reckless and intentional acts. That's how "the lesser fault standard incorporates the greater."

"Where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness." This means you are guilty if you are negligent or reckless or act intentionally. Yes intentional harm is the most serious - that's why it's captured by the lesser standard.