I accept [*Concentrate Criminal Law* (2020 7 edn)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Law-Concentrate-Revision-Study-dp-0198854986/dp/0198854986/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) 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)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Simester-Sullivans-Criminal-Law-Doctrine-dp-1509926682/dp/1509926682/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). 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)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Law-Directions-Nicola-Monaghan-dp-0198848781/dp/0198848781/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). 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.



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