{{Short description|Degree of mens rea}} {{Globalize|article|2=England|2name=English law|discuss=Talk:Knowledge (legal construct)#Globalize|date=April 2023}}
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.<ref>Theft Act 1968, s.12</ref>
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".<ref>Herring (2004) ''p.''170</ref>
Knowledge can be actual, constructive, or imputed.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Graves |first=Charles Tait |date=2024 |title=Intentionality in Trade Secret Law |url=https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1300454 |journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=721-781 |doi=10.15779/Z38000018N |via=Academic Search Complete}}</ref>
==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.<ref name="H1">Herring (2004) ''p.''171</ref> For example, in ''R v. Williams''<ref>[1987] 3 All ER 411, CA (England)</ref> 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''<ref>[1987] 3 All ER 425, (UK Privy Council)</ref> 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== {{seealso|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.<ref name="H1"/> 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.<ref>''Anderton v. Ryan'' [1985] AC 560, HL (England)</ref>
==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.<ref>''Ferguson v. Weaving'' [1951] 1 All ER 412 (England)</ref>
==References== {{reflist}}
==Bibliography== *{{cite book | author=Herring, J. | year=2004 | title=Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials | location=Oxford | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn=0-19-876578-9 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/criminallawtextc0000herr/page/170 170–172] | url=https://archive.org/details/criminallawtextc0000herr/page/170 }}
Category:Criminal law Category:Forensic psychology
{{law-term-stub}}