🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Actus Reus, Mens Rea

84 views14 pages
puceimpala206
16 May 2011
School
UTSG
Department
Woodsworth College Courses
Course
WDW101Y1
Professor
David Davies

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

All charter rights other than s. 7 - Step 2: can the law be justified ( saved ) in a free and democratic society under s. 1 (r. v. oakes test)? pressing and substantial objective; and rational connection; and minimal impairment; and overall proportionality. 2: if yes, does it do so in a way that is inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice (over breadth, vagueness, minimum requirement for mens rea etc. ) No law does not violate s. 7. Therefore, no s. 1/oakes analysis has to have a pressing and substantial objective and a rational connection between the purpose of the legislation and the means that they chose . Balance the infringement against the benefit*- if were talking about section 7 breech the analysis is slightly different, here the. 1st step = does the law infringe the right to life liberty or security? www. notesolution. com. In criminal law the answer to that 1st question only will always be yes.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Presing
puceimpala206
WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Anal Sex, Arbitrariness, Vagueness
brownbeetle36
WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Muhammed Azam Didamari, Narcotic Control Act, Overbreadth Doctrine
cyanbuffalo20

Related Questions

One of the most distressing problems with Utilitarianism is that it seems to be at odds with traditional notions of justice and human rights. We have seen that Utilitarianism responds to this issue by urging us to dispose of those traditional notions. What would be the implications of such a shift in our fundamental thinking and approach to societal relationships? Is it possible to imagine a scenario where abandoning our traditional notions of justice and human rights would be the morally right action? Where it would be the Utilitarian answer but still wrong? In our search for a guiding principle for both business and society, would a new vision of justice and human rights conceived under the Principle of Utility serve society in the same way as our traditional notions? Why or why not? How?

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Clarence Gideon couldnot afford - and was denied - legal representation in his casebased on the Florida statute that only afforded criminal suspectscourt appointed attorneys in capital cases. The SCOTUS ruled thatunder the 6th Amendment

A.

the U.S. Constitution does not distinguish between capital andnon-capital crimes under the 6th Amendment's protection for theindividual to "have the assistance of counsel"
B.

citizens have a right to privacy and Gideon's right to privacywas violated by the police
C.

Gideon's individual rights are subordinate to the principle ofprotecting the public for the greater good and it is thereforejustified to violate the individual liberties of citizens undercircumstances where the greater good for society is well served
D.

Gideon had a right to an abortion, to read Huslter magazine andsmoke marijuana
E.

Gideon was guilty even with legal representation

Consider each of the transactions below. All of the expenditures were made in cash. The Edison Company spent $21,000 during the year for experimental purposes in connection with the development of a new product. In April, the Marshall Company lost a patent infringement suit and paid the plaintiff $6,500. In March, the Cleanway Laundromat bought equipment. Cleanway paid $15,000 down and signed a noninterest-bearing note requiring the payment of $22,500 in nine months. The cash price for this equipment was $34,000. On June 1, the Jamsen Corporation installed a sprinkler system throughout the building at a cost of $37,000. The Mayer Company, plaintiff, paid $21,000 in legal fees in November, in connection with a successful infringement suit on its patent. The Johnson Company traded its old machine with an original cost of $11,900 and a book value of $5,700 plus cash of $9,800 for a new one that had a fair value of $12,700. The exchange has commercial substance. Required: Prepare journal entries to record each of the above transactions. (If no entry is required for a transaction/event, select "No journal entry required" in the first account field.)