Knowledge (legal construct)

In law, knowledge is one of the degrees of mens rea that constitute part of a crime. For example, in English law, the offence of knowingly being a passenger in a vehicle taken without consent (TWOC) requires that the prosecution prove not only that the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle and that it was taken by the driver without consent, but also that the defendant knew that it was taken without consent. ^[1]

The mens rea of knowledge refers to knowledge about certain facts rather than "of the law is". It is "a positive belief that a state of affairs exists". ^[2]

Knowledge can be actual, constructive, or imputed. ^[3]

Actual knowledge

A defendant does not have actual knowledge if they believe something to the contrary. The standard is subjective and the belief of the defendant need not be reasonable, only honest. ^[4] For example, in R v. Williams ^[5] the defendant intervened in what he thought was a mugging but was in fact a citizen's arrest. His mistake was upheld as a defence against a charge of assault. In Beckford v. R ^[6] the defendant was a police officer who shot and killed V. Beckford claimed that he believed that V was shooting at him. It was found that the correct test was whether D "honestly believed" facts which, if true, would establish a defence. The reasonableness of the belief would be evidential in finding whether it was truly believed.

Constructive knowledge

See also: Willful ignorance

Knowledge is also found where a defendant suspects that circumstances exist and "deliberately decides not to make any further enquiries" in case his suspicions prove well founded. ^[4] A common example is a person who purchases significantly inexpensive and unprovenanced but desirable items from a stranger. Such a person is likely to be fixed with constructive knowledge that the items were stolen. ^[7]

Imputed knowledge

This is relevant in strict liability offences and in corporate crime. For example, if a bar manager delegates his duties to others and those others know of unlawful activities on the premises, the manager can be fixed with imputed knowledge of the unlawful activities. ^[8]

References

1. Theft Act 1968, s.12
2. Herring (2004) p.170
3. Graves, Charles Tait (2024). "Intentionality in Trade Secret Law". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 39 (2): 721–781. doi:10.15779/Z38000018N – via Academic Search Complete.
4. Herring (2004) p.171
5. [1987] 3 All ER 411, CA (England)
6. [1987] 3 All ER 425, (UK Privy Council)
7. Anderton v. Ryan [1985] AC 560, HL (England)
8. Ferguson v. Weaving [1951] 1 All ER 412 (England)

Bibliography

• Herring, J. (2004). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.  170–172. ISBN   0-19-876578-9.