Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
Carleton (20,000)
LAWS (2,000)
LAWS 2302 (200)
Lecture 7

LAWS 2302 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Toronto Pearson International Airport, Asteroid Family, The Offence


Department
Law
Course Code
LAWS 2302
Professor
Michael Smith
Lecture
7

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Criminal Law February 24th 2016 Lecture 7
Duress
i) ‘he or she made me do it’ defence
ii) When force is applied onto you to do something criminal- forced to commit a
criminal offence against your will
iii) S.17 CC- refers to the law with respect to duress
iv) R. v. Carker- Carker broke some plumbing in his cell, because other prisoners were
telling him to do so, and threatening him during. He was charged with mischief. He
admitted to doing it, but relied on s.17 and duress. But, no imminent danger or threat
to his life was present, because all the inmates were separated by their closed cells.
The Supreme Court restored his conviction of mischief. Of importance: immediacy of
the threats to his act, and the lack thereof
v) Duress is most often commonly used for property crimes, and can’t be applied to
certain (usually violent) offences- ie different kinds of assault, different kinds of
murder, robbery, piracy, treason, etc.
vi) R. v. Paquette- Paquette was told to drive to a shop for a robbery by Clermont, or he'll
get shot (Clermont was holding a gun to him when he threatened him. During the
robbery, a bystander got shot by a third person they picked up, Simard, and died.
Paquette was charged with murder because he was aiding and abetting in the robbery
which turned into the murder, as the court found. Paquette was never cooperative
during the offence, and even drove away and wouldn’t pick up the 2. He was
eventually acquitted.
vii)Hibbert v. The Queen- Hibbert, owing Bailey $100, ran into him one day, and was
threatened with death if he didn’t help him kill a third person, Hibbert’s friend,
Cohen. Hibbert called Cohen and asked him to meet him in the lobby of Cohen’s
apartment. Bailey was there, and took the party of three into the basement. He shoots
Cohen down there after striking him, but Cohen survives. Hibbert was charged with
aggravated assault, which led to an appeal to the SCC. They allowed the appeal, with
a new trial ordered. The court contended that no safe avenues of escape were ver
present for Hibbert.
viii) R. v. Ruzic- Ruzic was picked up in Pearson Airport with 2kg of heroin and a fake
passport. She claimed duress, and fought its constitutionality, stating it infringed s.7
of the Charter due to the fact it only extended onto the person themselves, not a third
party (the threats were told to Ruzic, but directed at her mother). The ‘presence’
element was there, the mother was in the presence of the threatener. Immediacy was
present too, with the threat being able to be carried out at any time against her mother.
She had no safe avenue of escape despite multiple layovers of her flight, moral
involuntariness.
ix) Elements of duress (found in R. v. Ryan)
(1) Need of a threat directed against the accused or a third party
(2) The accused believed the threat would be carried out
(3) There are no safe avenues of escape present for the accused
(4) A close temporal presence must be present
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version