Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
Carleton (20,000)
LAWS (2,000)
LAWS 2302 (200)
Lecture 11

LAWS 2302 Lecture 11: Law Week 11


Department
Law
Course Code
LAWS 2302
Professor
Mike Smith
Lecture
11

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Law Week 11
R.V Perka
Botaial defese
Boat was caught in storm, and had 7million$ of marijuana on board. They had to dock in BC to survive.
They were found not guilty due to necessity. Appealed. Then the crown said that this was not necessity,
it was merely convenience. They said they actually offloaded their product in the BC harbour with the
intent to sell it, but when they got caught they fell back onto the necessity. The court dismissed their
appeal and ordered a new trial.
Necessity says;
-They committed their act to prevent greater harm from falling upon them
-it is in pursuit of a greater good
When we talk about justification, were basically saying what we did was right, but it had to be done.
When we talk about an excuse, were saying that what we did was in the wrong, but had to be done.
Cannot legally punish someone because they find themselves in a circumstance where they had no
other viable option
The individual must find themselves in a circumstance of imminent risk, where the action was taken to
avoid a direct or immediate peril. There must not be a situation where another reasonable alternative
was available. Negligence will disentitle you to rely on the defence of necessity.
R.V Roberts
The appellat’s other had ee haig heart attak like syptos. The appellat as ery druk at
the time but drove her mother anyways. She was found guilty of drunk driving due to the fact that she
could have called an ambulance or a taxi. The court found it to be convenience and not necessity.
Self Defence Sec 34
Must establish that the force they use was proportionate and sufficient to repel the attacker or to get
the attacker to stop the attack.
Also able to defend ones property. Same rules apply.
Consent.
law states that two adults can consent to a fight.
R.V Mackey. 1970
Mackey slashed another player with a hockey stick. Was charged with assault with a weapon. Argued
consent. Other player testified that it was consent, he was acquitted.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version