Class Notes (806,766)
Canada (492,430)
Law (1,901)
LAWS 2302 (179)
John Hale (41)
Lecture 3

Lecture 3.docx

30 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
LAWS 2302
John Hale

Lecture 3 R. v. Smithers (1977, SCC, p. 326) - (2) The accused’s act need merely be a “contributing cause… outside the de minimus range… The accused’s intention is irrelevant, as is the foreseeability of the harm. If there is more than one contributing cause, it doesn’t matter which one contributed more. - (1) The factual determination of causation is to be made by the trier of fact, based on all the evidence, both expert and lay - ∆ convicted of manslaughter; unsuccessful appeal to Ont. C.A.; ∆ appeals - Facts: • Feb. 18, 1973, Applewood Midget Team played hockey against Cooksville Midget Team in Mississauga • Leading player for Applewood was V, Barry Cobby, 16 yrs old • Smithers was the leading player for Cooksville • Aggressive game • ∆ is black; was subjected to racial taunts by Cobby et al. • Following a heated exchange of profanities, Cobby and ∆ were ejected • ∆ was saying that he was going to get Cobby • After game, Cobby left with about 10 other people; ∆ repeated his threats, but Cobby didn’t take up the challenge • ∆ caught up with Cobby outside and punched him twice in the head • Others restrained ∆, while Cobby did nothing to defend himself • Cobby doubled over in pain; ∆ broke free and delivered a hard, fast kick to Cobby’s stomach • Cobby groaned, staggered towards his car, fell on his back, and gasped for air • Within 5 minutes he appeared to stop breathing; DOAat hospital • Cobby had choked to death on his own vomit; normally the epiglottis closes to prevent inhaling vomit, but the protective mechanism failed here • Medical evidence was to the effect that a sudden kick would very possibly or very probably have caused regurgitation • Defence theory: the victim was so emotional that he may have spontaneously vomited, regardless of the kick - Issue: Is the malfunctioning epiglottis (assuming the malfunction was not caused by the kick) a break in the chain of causation? - Held: No: conviction upheld - Ratio: 3 important rulings re causation 1. The factual determination of causation is to be made by the trier of fact, based on all the evidence, both expert and lay 2. The accused’s act (here a kick) need merely be a “contributing cause… outside the de minimus range.” It was immaterial that the death had been partly caused by a malfunctioning epiglottis to which ∆ may not have contributed. The accused’s intention is irrelevant, as is the foreseeability of the harm. If there is more than one contributing cause, it doesn’t matter which one contributed more. 3. The “thin-skull doctrine” applies in criminal law, i.e., the “well-recognized principle that one who assaults another must take his victim as he finds him.” Once the Crown had proven a causal link between the kick and the vomiting, there was no requirement that the Crown prove that the kick caused the aspiration. The contributing condition of a malfunctioning epiglottis is immaterial. - The Smithers Test: The accused’s act need merely be a contributing cause outside the de minimus range, The accused’s intentions are irrelevant as is the forseeability of the harm. If there is more than one contributing cause, it doesn’t matter which one contributed more. If the contribution was more than trivial, all causes which lead to death can be seen as guilty of causation. The jury decides on causation because it is a question of fact. R. v. Shanks (1996, Ont. C.A., problem p. 332) - ∆ convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to 6 years; ∆ appeals to Ont. C.A. - Facts: ∆, drunk at the time, provoked his neighbour into a fight by threatening him • During the fight, ∆ threw V down to the ground and then backed off • Alittle while later, V suffered an acute heart attack and died • V was very ill before the incident, but ∆ didn’t know the extent of the illness - Held: Smithers applies: ∆’s unlawful act was a contributing cause outside the de minimus range • The continuum of events from the threats through to the assault was cause of death • ∆’s drunkenness and lack of awareness of the consequences goes to sentence • Sentence reduced to 2 years less a day Cases challenging the Smithers Test - Many people say that the Smither’s Test bar is too low R. v. F. (D.L.) (1989, Alta. C.A., p. 348) - ∆ acquitted in Youth Court of Impaired Causing Bodily Harm, Over 80, Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Crown appeals only the third acquittal - Facts: ∆ hit a pedestrian who was jaywalking; he was speeding, his brakes were defective; he wasn’t wearing glasses that he needed; he failed to accommodate a narrowing of the road 1* Trial Judge felt that ∆ was driving dangerously 2* However, judge felt that no single component of the ∆’s bad driving was the cause of bodily harm; for example, the speeding didn’t cause bodily harm - Issue: Was trial judge wrong in breaking down the driving into its component parts, and determining whether any component caused the accident? - Held: Yes; conviction entered - Ratio: Court accepts approach suggested by Rick Libman: 1. Was the driving dangerous? 2. Was there bodily harm within the defn in s.267(2)? 3. What was the relation between the dangerous driving and the bodily harm? • The question then is, when does the dangerous driving “thereby cause” the injury or death? • (p. 338) The unlawful driving must still demonstrably influence the actual accident beyond serving as its backdrop.” • Crown urged here that Smithers test apply, i.e., contribution beyond de minimus. The test was invoked in a manslaughter case, and the question is whether it applies to a charge under s. 249(3) and (4) • Court: sees test as being unfair; there is a difference between “causing”, which applies a substantial cause, and de minimus contribution. It is conceivable that the accused’s conduct had very little to do with the accident (eg., a 3-car accident) but, applying de minimus, it amounts to criminality • The de minimus test may very well be unconstitutional: the “sweeping accountability” may conflict with principles of fundamental justice; however, in this case the issue is moot because the ∆’s driving was very bad and obviously contributed to the accident (p. 339) - Court had to decide whether the driver was driving dangerously and f the victim suffered bodily harm and if the driver caused it. The court decided that the Smither’s Test was inadequate, they said it was unconstitutional, too many people may be sent to jail for no reason. R. v. Harbottle (1993, SCC, p. 336) - ∆ convicted of 1st degree murder; upheld in Ont. C.A.; appeals to SCC - Facts: ∆ and a companion forcibly confined a young woman. • The companion brutally sexually assaulted her while ∆ watched • ∆ held her legs to stop her from kicking and struggling while the companion strangled her • Ont. C.A.: ∆ was a party to the murder - Issue: What is the test for causation in a constructive murder case, s.231(5)? - Held: ∆’s appeal dismissed; test is higher than for manslaughter - Ratio: There should be a restrictive test, given that this is a murder charge, not manslaughter • Crown must prove that ∆ committed an act or series of acts that are “of such a nature that they must be regarded as a substantial and integral cause of the death; • Therefore normally ∆ must play a very active role — usually a physical role — in the killing • The test is much higher than manslaughter (Smithers — de minimus for manslaughter) • P. 344: sets out 5-step test • This test may apply only to 1st-degree murder; otherwise, Smithers applies - First Degree Murder Case. The court said the test for causation had to be more than what the Smither’s test proposed. The test should be the substantial and integral cause of death R. v. Cribbin (1994, Ont. CA, , note p. 347) - ∆ convicted by jury of manslaughter; appeal to CA allowed on unrelated grounds; CA comments obiter on causation - Facts: ∆ punched and kicked V first, then his companion beat V more viciously injuries were not life-threatening, but V drowned in his own blood when left by ∆ and friend - Issue: Constitutionality of the de minimus test - Held: Constitutional - Ratio: Crown wanted Smithers test to apply (contributing beyond de minimus) 3* Defence wanted Harbottle test to apply (essential, substantial and integral part of the killing) 4* Charter rulings: (1) It is a principle of fundamental justice (s.7) that moral innocence not be punished; criminal causation is a legal rule based on concepts of moral responsibility, not on mechanical or scientific formulas (2) The Smithers test is not too vague; it’s no less vague than the “substantial cause” test (3) The Smithers test is not too broad; it did not set the standard too low, especially when it is remembered that the Crown must also prove objective foresight of bodily harm - Cribbin has been criticized as setting the threshold too low: the morally innocent could still be found guilty of manslaughter - Manslaughter case, the Smither’s case was attacked for setting threshold too low, but the court said it was still good law for manslaughter cases. R. v. Nette (2001, SCC, p. 338) - “Not insignificant” = “significant” - “Not unattractive” = “attractive” - “Not unintelligent” = “intelligent” - Etc. etc…. - ∆ convicted of 2 -degree murder; appeal to B.C.C.A. dismissed; appeals to S.C.C. - Facts:A95-year-old woman who lived alone was robbed and hog-tied on her bed; she died of asphyxiation sometime during the following 48 hours. • ∆ admitted the robbery to an undercover police officer whom he was trying to impress • ∆ now says that the confession was false • V also suffered from congestive heart failure and asthma, which may have speeded up the process of asphyxiation nd • Trial Judge told jury that the standard of causation for 2 degree murder was “the slight or trivial cause necessary to find second degree murder” instead of “more than a trivial cause” - Issue: What is the standard for 2 degree murder? - Held (5:4): “significant contributing cause” is the test for manslaughter and 2 degree murder - Reasons: • (1) Arbour J. & 4 others:  The causation standard in Smithers applies to all forms of homicide st  According to Harbottle, a further instruction is needed re 1 degree murder; it is the same test as in Smithers, but stated differently  The Smithers test should be articulated in a more direct and affirmative fashion:  Eliminate the Latin  Say “significant” instead of “not insignificant”, as they mean the same thing  No matter how we define it, ∆ caused the victim’s death in this case • (2) L’Heureux-Dubé & 3 others:  “Sophism”: p. 345 - Second degree murder case. The Victim was a 95 year old woman who lived alone. Nette broke into her home and tied her to the bed. He had placed her in an uncomfortable position and she ended up dying from the position she was put in. The court said that the trivial cause of tying the victim led Nette to be guilty. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Smither’s test, but came up with another test to deal with murder cases. They converted the test into a “not significant” to “significant” they set the bar higher. R. v. Talbot (2007, OCA, p. 346) - Confirms that the test for causation is “substantial cause”, not the Smithers “beyond the de minimus” - Held that the guilty shown by a significant contribution to the offence The Fault Requirement (mens rea or negligence) Examples 1) S. 334 and s.322: intent to deprive… 2) S. 140: intent to mislead… 3) S. 265:no intent required 4) S. 270(1)(a) - assault police officer: must know it’s a police officer in line of duty 5) S. 229 and 231 (murder) The fault requirement (mens rea) - The Crown must prove mens rea with respect to each of the elements of the actus reus. eg., s.140(1)(c) 1. Intended the activity (reports an offence) 2. Knew the circumstances (when the offence has not been committed) 3. Intended the consequences (specific intent) (sometimes) (“cause the officer to investigate”), and 4. Sometimes, some additional intent (“intent to mislead”) • Ex: breach of probation States of Mind - Intent/knowledge (and willful blindness) - Recklessness - Negligence - Strict liability - Accident Subjective/objective - Intent/knowledge (and willful blindness) subjective - Recklessness subjective - Negligence objective - Strict liability n/a (Crown only has to prove actus reus) - Accident n/a - Prank Crimes • In order for the accused to be considered guilty they must have criminal intent. Pranks usually do not result in a guilty verdict because the accused did not intend to cause harm. R. v. McCormick (1968, Qué. Q.B.) - Facts: Student, 19 yrs old • Employed at Expo 67 as pedicab driver • June 8, 1967: went to brewery pavilion after work • Got drunk; took Iranian flag down in front of officer with intention of raising it in front of Israel’s pavilion - Issue: Was intention (“fraudulently”) made out: s.322 - Held: No-acquitted - Ratio: “In my opinion this appeal falls into the category of case in which a normally law- abiding person, who has no criminal record, commits, more or less on the spur of the moment, a stupid and reprehensible act by taking something which does not belong to him because at the time, and in the frame of mind he then was, it seemed like a good “joke” or “prank”. What was done may, to some people, seem reprehensible and might possibly subject the accused to some punitive measure, but not in my opinion subject them to conviction as common thieves and to a criminal record for the future.” - It was an ill-considered prank, and there was no criminal intent. - The accused was working as a petty cab driver at the Expo 67’.After working he decided to go to the bar and have a few drinks. He ended up getting very drunk. He had an idea to steal the Iranian flag and put it on top of Israeli Flag. He was caught in the act trying to put it up on the Israeli Flag. The countries tried to sue him for stealing. The court acquitted the accused saying it was a prank. R. v. Handfield (1953, Que. Q.B.) - Accused were three youths who stole a political banner from the lawn of the uncle of Berthiaume, inviting the electorate to vote for Mr. Ladouceur (a Conservative), and put the banner on the lawn of Handfield’s father (a Liberal); Trial judge found them guilty and sentenced them to 8 days jail. Summary conviction appeal: it was just a joke, no criminal intent, Not Guilty. - Hansfield and his father had different political views (Quebec). Hansfield decided to steal a banner from one of their neighbours’yards who had a picture of his father most hated political candidate. He planted it in front of his father’s house. His father and the neighbor did not find this funny. The court said it was a prank and the acquitted him. R. v. Wilkins (1964, Ont. C.A.) - Traffic cop was ticketing car of Wilkins’friend - About mid-afternoon on Saturday, January 18, 1964, while performing those duties he stopped beside a motor car which it turned out was owned by one Mike Borysuik and which was unlawfully parked on Downie St. opposite a parking meter and was in the act of writing out a parking ticket to place on it when the accused, who, together with Borysuik, was in the beverage room of a hotel opposite it [∆ had about 12 beers], came across, seated himself on the vehicle and spoke to Nichol. Nichol did not hear what he said due to a helmet covering his ears and to the noise coming from the motor on the servicar which had been left running. So he just smiled in return. They both knew one another reasonably well. Wilkins stated in evidence -- and there was no reason to disbelieve him -- that what he said was this, "If you give Mike a ticket I am going to ride your motorcycle around the parking lot", referring to the parking lot in front of a nearby supermarket. When Nichol did not desist from what he was doing the accused, suiting his actions to his words, drove the servicar down the street out of the view of Nichol. - Wilkins told cop that if he ticketed car, Wilkins would take cop’s motorcycle, which he did - Court: “the intention to perpetrate this joke, stupid as it was, is incompatible with the evil intent which is inherent in the crime of theft.” - Wilkins saw the police trying to put a ticket on his friend’s car. He told the police if you put that ticket on my friend’s car I will steal your motorcycle. The police put the ticket on his friend’s car. So Hansfield stole the motorcycle. The court held that the action was incompatible with the evil intent inherent in the crime of theft. R. v. Kerr (1965, Man. C.A.) - Accused was prominent businessman - Was celebrating with “considerable conviviality” victory in a retriever dog championship competition - Celebration started afternoon of September 30, 1964, and ended October 1 - 1:55 a.m.: accused and two friends were at InternationalAirport to ship a dog - Took metal 40” high cylindrical ashtray from airport - Walked past maintenance man - Put ashtray on lawn - Didn’t remember taking it when police came the next morning - Kerr was at a dog show with his dog. They won first place. Him and a few of his buddies stopped at the airport bar and had a few drinks. Kerr decided to take the ashtray home. He was acquitted because he did not have the criminal intent. R. v. Dewit and Sierens (1981, Man. Prov. Ct.) - V, Rene Gariepy, was a good friend of both ∆’s who lived in a timber shack that was a popular drop-in party center - ∆ had both warned V continually that he needed to lock his doors and protect his property - One Saturday night, while V was out of town at a hockey tournament, ∆ broke into the shack and stole V’s stereo equipment, TV, radio and records worth about $6,000 - The plan was to set the equipment up at Dewit’s home, invite V there, and make their point about his lax security - V freaked out when he got home and found his stereo missing; he called police - ∆ admitted what they did, and V sent the police to ∆ - At trial, V agreed that the whole thing was a prank - Court: accepts this was a prank; not guilty - The victim never locked his doors to his house. Dewit and Sierens, who were the victims friends decided to teach him a lesson to lock his doors. The victim left for the evening and the two accused decided to go in his house and steal all of his things. When he came home all his stuff was gone. They were acquitted because they did not have the intent, and their intentions were to teach him a lesson and they were going to return all of his belongings. R. v. Dalzelle (1983, NSCA) - COOPER, J.A.:-- The respondent (Miss Dalzell) was charged with unlawfully stealing groceries of a total value not exceeding $ 200.00, the property of Sobey's Stores Limited, contrary to s. 294(b) of the Criminal Code. The offence is alleged to have taken place at Halifax on December 5, 1981. Miss Dalzell was acquitted by Judge Hughes Randall of the Provincial Magistrate's Court and an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal was dismissed by Judge P. J. T. O Hearn of the County Court Judge's Criminal Court of District Number One. The Crown has now applied for leave to appeal and, if granted, appeals against Judge O Hearn's decision on the ground that he erred in law in his interpretation of the word "fraudulently" as it appears in s. 283 of the Code, the relevant provisions of which read: • "283. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything whether animate or inanimate, with intent, • (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it or a person [*page150] who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it, . . . . ." - Judge O Hearn's decision is now reported in 54 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 112A.P.R. 239. He reviewed the facts in considerable detail and I will, therefore, confine myself to a recital of such of them as I consider necessary to an understanding of these reasons for judgment. - MissAntoinette Rafuse was employed as a private investigator by a security company. She described her duties as "anti-shoplifting". On Saturday, December 5, 1981, Miss Rafuse was working in the Sobey's Stores Limited food store located in the Simpson's Mall, Halifax. In the course of watching people she noticed Miss Dalzell standing in a corner of Lawton's Pharmacy, which is "part of Sobey's". Miss Rafuse saw Miss Dalzell take some articles in Lawton's and put them in the top of her shopping cart. - The scene then changed to Sobey's store where Miss Dalzell took some steaks and put them into her briefcase, which was in the cart. She then picked up cheese and a pound of butter and also put them in the briefcase. - Miss Dalzell then went over to the front of the store, left the cart, took the bag and briefcase, proceeded out of the store, the Lawton's entrance, where she was apprehended by Miss Rafuse. The articles taken by Miss Dalzell were produced at the trial - steaks, cheese and two pounds of bacon and as well the items taken from the Lawton's store. The value of the grocery articles taken was given by Miss Rafuse as $ 79.59. - After Miss Dalzell was apprehended she was brought into the store office where she was asked if she had ever done this before and her reply was "no". Miss Rafuse further testified that Miss Dalzell said that she was "working on a case" with children,". . . where these children were stealing all the time and they had told her that they had got away with it all the time and if they went into stores nobody did anything anyway. So she wanted to test us, to find out the security in the store, to find out just how good we were.And she said that she after she had took the products home, the items that she took, that she was going to bring them back the next day. And she was also going to do other stores too." It appears from the cross-examination of Miss Rafuse that Miss Dalzell was not upset at all until the police were called and commented that she was "involved in a certain program". - Miss Dalzell gave evidence at the trial. She was employed at the time of the Sobey's store incident by the Bank of Commerce as anAdministrativeAssistant, Officer in Training, and had been so employed for about a year. She was also furthering her education leading to a Masters Degree in Social Work. Miss Dalzell explained that since 1979 she had been working in a juvenile crime deterrence program. It involved acquainting the young people with whom she worked with the penitentiary system by means of a visit to Dorchester Penitentiary, discussions with prison officials and prison guards, touring the penitentiary and speaking with a group of inmates serving life sentences. The project was similar to a program of juvenile crime deterrence sponsored by the Raleigh, North Carolina, State Prison and known as "Scared Straight". - Miss Dalzell received funding for the program through the Solicitor-General of Canada's office under the Summer Youth Program, but the project suffered a setback when the Halifax School Board decided they could not sanction the plan because it was unethical. I [*page151] quote from Miss Dalzell's evidence on direct examination: "At this point my program - I saw my work going down the drain, and I said well in order to keep the program in operation I had to revise it. Most of the juveniles that I worked with had had - they had all been in Court and sentenced at least once - that we had to pick those juveniles for our evaluation - and these juveniles told me not once, but over a course of a long period of time, that they were involved in stealing, not only petty theft but robbery, I guess. They told me how easy it was, and they thought that the present Stop Lift program - they called it - I've forgotten what they called it, they just called it the present - the cops never caught them - and if they did, then they were always let go. Since they were offences, and I said well it can't be that easy - and they said well yes it is, we do it all the time, and every once in a while somebody gets caught. I talked to the juveniles at great length about how they would do it, how they did it. I received various replies --- • Q. Now, the --- What was the nature of your program? How did you revamp it - what were you going to do? • A. I had decided to keep the part of the program that was based on the Scared Straight, and also to add another facet to the program, which would be an alternative to Stop Lift." - The alternative involved Miss Dalzell presenting a program to merchants so that instead of going to the police or the judicial system, as they would do under their Stop Lift program, they would come to an organization which Miss Dalzell would have instituted and at a time before the police were involved.Apparently by this scheme the juveniles were more apt to "shape up than if they were "brought to the police", particularly because their parents would be involved before court appearances. - Miss Dalzell was unsuccessful, however, in getting any support for this program from merchants to whom she spoke. She was told in every instance that until she could prove that she had a program that would work they were not interested and "they felt that because I was doing a thesis on it, that I was just being a do-gooder and an academic, and they didn't want anything to do with it". - Miss Dalzell then attempted to prove that the Stop Lift program doesn't work. Her method of doing so, which she stated frankly in her evidence as sounding "crazy now", was for her to go into a chain store, take items, leave the store, list the items, go back and see the manager or whoever was in charge and then explain her alternative program. It was in furtherance of this plan that Miss Dalzell went into Sobey's store and the premises of Lawton's Pharmacy and took the articles to which I have referred. - In the course of her direct examination Miss Dalzell's attention was drawn to the fact that Miss Rafuse had testified that Miss Dalzell had told her that she was going "to take them back the next day" and was asked, "What did you intend to do?" The answer was: "Like I said - I don't know why she said that. I told her and the other security guard, and the policeman who was present, that I had intended to take them out of the store, list them, and bring them directly back. . . ." - In cross-examination Miss Dalzell candidly admitted that she intended to leave the store without paying for the goods and these questions and answers appear: [*page152] • Q. Well, Miss Dalzell, you intended to leave the store then, without paying for the goods -- that was your motive - isn't that correct? • A. Yes. • Q. And the very proof that the Stop Lift program works is that you're here today facing theft under charge - isn't that correct also? • A. I have at least forty juveniles that say it doesn't work. • Q. Yes - but you're here today facing a theft under charge because you stole property belonging to Sobey's - isn't that correct? • A. Yes." - (The appeal court found that there was no animus furendi.) - Dazelle went to the grocery store, and she walked out with some items. In court she said that she was trying to test out the security system to make sure it was working. She was acquitted because she had no criminal intent. R. v. Smith (1989, Nfld. S.C.) - BARRY J.:— This appeal arises out of the acquittal of the respondent by His Honour Judge Owen Kennedy in Provincial Court of Newfoundland at Crow Head onApril 27, 1988 where the respondent had been charged with stealing a clock belonging to the Royal Canadian Legion, Twillingate Men's Dart League of a value not exceeding $1,000.00 contrary to s. 294(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code). - Briefly stated, the evidence disclosed that on December 1, 1987 the respondent, upon observing a clock on display at the Royal Canadian Legion club at Twillingate, declared openly that it was a nice clock and that he would like to have it. Later that evening, in full view of other persons in the club, he walked behind the bar, picked up the clock and walked out of the building with it. He deposited the clock at the house of his mother and left it there while he went about his own affairs. The clock remained at his mother's residence for nine days before it was retrieved by the police. He was asked by the bartender at the club, one Vera Young, why he was taking the clock and he replied that he was just going to take it and then proceeded to do so. - Joan Jenkins, manager of the club, was present in the building that evening. She stated that the respondent told her he was going to take the clock, but she did not see him remove it. It was a clock proposed as a lottery prize which a dart league sponsored by the Legion Club had put up on display in the lobby of the club premises. - On December 9, Clarence Burgess of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.), in response to a complaint from the Legion club respecting the missing clock, called upon the respondent who, upon being questioned, admitted taking it and advised the constable that it was located at his mother's house. In a voluntary statement the respondent declared that he took the clock as a joke, not intending to keep it. The trial judge held that there was no fraudulent intent on the part of the respondent to deprive the owner of its clock. He stated that the respondent had taken it as a prank and that he was satisfied that what was intended by the respondent was not a dishonest act, but a good natured joke. He referred to the cases of R. v. Kerr, (Man. C.A. 1969) 3 C.C.C. 201 and R. v. Hemminger and Honeygold, (Que. C.A. 1963) 17 C.R. 343, which recognized the prank attempt, and he acquitted the respondent of the charge. - The trial judge found as a question of fact that the respondent's conduct in taking the clock from the Legion was a prank intended only to be a joke, without any intention of keeping the article for his own use or benefit, either temporarily or permanently. The evidence before him supports such a finding and I see no reason to disturb it. - Smith was at a restaurant, and he was getting a little drunk. He decided that he was taking the clock off the wall. He took the clock in front of the entire restaurant and the owner and managers. He brought it to his mother’s house for 9 days. He was then charged with theft. He was acquitted because he had no intent of stealing, since he took it off in front of everyone R. v. Ramsden (1980, Ont. Prov. Ct.) - Students were celebrating end of term at Trent U. - Ramsden was an actor who was celebrating with some friends - Formed CART, CommitteeAgainst Racism and Tackiness - First order of business was to “free the slaves of Peterborough” - 9 members of CART by end of evening, one of whom had a van - Drove around Peterborough, picking up black lawn jockeys (& white), pink flamingoes, plaster garden rabbit, a fake deer, squirrels, 200 pound Snow White, and all 7 dwarves - Original plan was to line them all up outside unemployment office - Snow White was damaged, and some owners were infuriated; one woman was afraid to put her rabbit out again, and it had been out for 30 years - Convicted-possessed intent to steal - Received $200 fine plus 2 years probation - General Rule for theft: need animus furandi, or intent to steal - At the University of Trent a bunch of students developed a club called the CART club. Which stood for the Committee against racism and tackiness. The students decided that one day they were going to go in the ne
More Less

Related notes for LAWS 2302

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.