Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UW (20,000)
LS (500)
LS202 (90)
Lecture

LS202 Lecture Notes - Mental Disorder, Actus Reus, Snapple


Department
Legal Studies
Course Code
LS202
Professor
Frances Chapman

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
LS 102 CRIMINAL LAW DEFENCES MARCH 19
INTRODUCTION
- No obligation on defense to launch
- Crown has burden of proving everything “evidentiary burden” in criminal law
- If defendant decides to speak, burden shifts to defense
- Air of reality test: if there is believability
- 2 general categories
1. Excuse
declaration by accused that they did wrongful action but the law should not punish
them
usually used in duress: “yes I killed him BUT…I was held at gunpoint [forced]
very risky, rarely successful
2. Justification
Declaration that challenges wrongfulness of action that constitutes as crime
Guy who’s hiking in winter freezing, does he break into cabin to save his life?
IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE OF LAW
- Mistake of law: unsure how the law would apply
Committed the actus reus but under a serious mistake as to the real facts of the situation
- Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law
NECESSITY
- Common law defense [not in criminal code, no guidance from legislation except from case law]
The defense of necessity covers all cases where the law is excused by an emergency or justified
by the pursuit of some greater good
- Put in bad situation [mother nature made, cannibalism Dudley case]
- Intertwined with duress [but duress is from another person]
1. Imminent peril
2. No reasonable alternative
3. Proportionality
- Necessity used in R. v. Latimer [disabled daughter functioning at 2 infant intelligence killed by father to
stop her pain]
DURESS
- A person commits an offence under threats of immediate death or bodily harm and believes it will be
carried out if the person does not participate
- Confusing in the Criminal Code b/c many exceptions
Robbery, forcible abduction, attempted murder, treason, hostage
- Common Law Defense
1. the threats must be of death or bodily harm
2. threats must be sufficiently serious that the accused believed it would be carried out
3. threats were of such gravity that the reasonable person would have acted same way
4. no safe avenue of escape
5. proportionality between the threat and the reaction
6. defence is not available if the accused if put in the situation as part of a criminal organization
NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE BY MEANS OF MENTAL DISORDER (NCRMD)
- need detailed medical information
- started with M’Naghten Case 1843
decided to kill the PM. Courts realized something was wrong with him because he thought he
was prosecuted by the government. House of Lords M’Naghten Rules [how to deal with those
mentally ill] first step to recognize need to address mentally ill
- s.16 no person is criminally responsible of an act made while suffering from a mental disorder and
disabled them if appreciating the quality of the act or knowing it was wrong
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version