WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Psychopathy, Psychosis, Curium

8 views15 pages
29 Jan 2013
School
Course
Professor
s.21 (1) of the code which deals with how it is everybody can be found guilty of an
offense. the person who commits it we call it the principal so that is what we call for most
of the term. doing or omitting to do any thing for the purpose of aiding the principal or
abiding the principal.
s.21 (2) where two or more people form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful
purpose so you form an intention to carry one offense you take steps to assist or you
agree to assist each other in committing that offense one or other two to agreement
commits a different offense and so if you knew or ought to know that the commission of
that offense will or culpable consequence to original to that offense then you can be party
to that additional offense as party.
1. The person who actually commits it is the principal the person who actually has the
actus reas and mens rea of the actual offense.
2. For the purpose of aiding equally responsible equally guilty of an offense. If you help
someone commit a robbery you commit a robbery if you help someone trafficking
cocaine you get convicted of trafficking the cocaine although you are someone
that did not commit. You are just as guilty as you commit the offense. what is the
actus reas so the actus reas is doing or omitting to do any thing, you can do any
thing and it can constitute aiding the principal, as long as it is accompanied by the
right mens rea. Mens rea is having the intentto assist so you want to intentionally
assist the principal and you have knowledge of what the principal intend to do. so
the one element of actus reas is doing or omitting to do any thing and 2 elements
of mens rea for being a party or aider so 1. the intent to assist and 2.
knowledge, knowledge can be proved by the way of willful blindness in any
crime knowledge is an element of mens rea you can prove it by willful
blindness.
3. s.21 (c) is abiding and aiding go hand in hand, they are actually different you can
abed someone without actually aiding commission. Again if you abed someone in
commission of acts you are as guilty as the person who commits the act. if you
encourage someone or control someone to stub someone you are just as guilty as
you are holding the knife self. And these are policy decision. So we have decided
to make it crime abiding and aiding. The important thing about the party is
that the actus reas and mens reas for the party are different as for the
principal.
Lastly on the party liability forming is the idea of common intention and this is
obviously much more complicated are, but if you pointed around the steps. There are
really 5 steps to it,
1. two or more people have to come to an agreement to commit a particular offense.
Forming intention in common 2 people agree to commit a particular offense a
robbery an assault a murder trafficking whatever two people agree to commit an
offense.
2. they take steps to carry out that unlawful purpose so they take steps actually commit
the offense they agreed (joint enterprise)
3. they actually assist one and other in committing the agreed offense, when one or other
of the perpetrators people who formed intention in common commits a different
offense, so this is two of us going to-traffics drugs we go and meet the customer
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 15 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
who is buying cocaine from us I think it is going to be great here is the drug here
is the money it is going to be great. And the person with who I am going to traffic
with commits a different offense assault a murder, hijacking whatever they go off
an follow their own and they commit a different offense in the context of our
original plan the question becomes then I might be guilty as a party to the other
offense they committed and I can be and I will be if i knew in circumstances
where the other offense requires subjective mens rea as murder or ought to
have known that the other offense or the assault or murder or the whatever
the other offense is were the probable consequence of the initial plan. so was
it a probable consequence of that my co perpetrator was going to commit an
assault taking hostage or whatever it may be that happen was that a probable
consequence and again these are all going tot be very fact specific depending on
the plan and whether we go armed did we plan to not be armed did I know that the
most ridiculous tempering what is my state of knowledge about the circumstances
that will determine whether or not I knew or ought to know that was the probable
consequences. So again I do not have to do any thing to help them to commit the
offense I do not necessarily have to know what they are about to do it but I just
have to know that it is a probable consequence. there is no requirement that I want
them to do it in fact they can do it and I CAN TURN AND SAY WHAT A HELL
ARE YOU DOING I still can be guilty if I knew that it was a probable
consequence of throwing out the plan that they might do this.
Abandoning common intention
The whole thing is we form a plan in committing an offense for example we talked about
drug trafficking and the question is, is there a way to get out of it can we back out of it
before things go wrong. And the answer is yes you can back out of a common
intention, you can not back out after you aided someone or after you abided someone
you are already guilty because you committed the actus reas and mens rea you can back
out of a common intention you can abandon common intention so person A and B
decided to drug traffic and in middle of the way persON A thinks this is not a good idea
and he says to person B I am out of this, I am not committing this drug transaction with
you let me out of the car but it is clear it is unequivocal A have communicated to B that
he is abandoning the common intention and he does it before they completed the offense,
it has to be before it happens that does not make A FREE BECAUSE A can be charged
with conspiracy or aiding because by forming the intention might have encouraged B, but
what A can not be found guilty of if he abandon the common intention is any thing of that
he may do is during the whole transaction itself so A abandon common intention and B
says you know what he does it any way and kill the person with who he deal drug, A
have abandon common intention A cannot be held liable for the other offense that B
committed in carrying out the common intention that A and B formed otherwise if A
standing beside B in killing during the drug transact A would be into s.21 (2) so
abandoning common intention only reliefs your liability of any thing else you may decide
to do after you have abandon common intention. Ought to have known in s.21 (2) is
only applicable if the other offense is an objective mens rea offense if the other
offense is murder then in order to be found guilty as a party under s.21 (2) the
crown has to prove that you actually knew or were willfully blind that murder was a
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 15 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
probable consequence or carrying out whatever your common intention was.
Example, Sunil and Morgan got really upset because government counsel have decided
without any consultation that they are going to increase the tuition 100% next year and
they make the announcement and these two students really get pissed off and they say
why should we not engage in some sort of protest we should hostage the president of the
University and we should hold him at knife until they agree that they are going to change
their mind. so they go and they carry out the common intention and they actually kidnap
the president of the university and they hold him at knife point things do not go so well
the negotiations don't go so well and they kind of ignore them at some point they do that
20 hour in to and Morgan decide to sleep the president in to it to make a big statement to
show that they are really serious and the president dies and Sunil says what on earth are
you doing. there is no doubt that Morgan is the principal so they are both principal in
respect to the hostage taking, they form an intention in common to kidnap and take
hostage and they are both principal in respect to that offense so s.21 (2) deals with your
liability for murder that happen in fulfilling the hostage taking event so there is no doubt
that Morgan is the principal to murder so Morgan committed the actus reas and there will
be a determination of what intention Morgan has whether it is going to be a first or
second degree murder but Morgan is going to be kept liable as a principal to murder.
Sunil can be found only guilty in respect of the killing under s.21 (2) if he knew that it
was probably going to happen. so if he knew going in to it that means as they were
walking to the office of the president as things were happening did he know that the
murder was a probable consequence of hostage taking. Depending on the circumstances
whether they talk about or not or what kind of knife they have if the crown can prove that
the murder was probable consequence he can be found guilty as a party to the murder
even though he did not do it even though he probably did not want it to happen even
though going to whole the scenario he thought this is going to be routine hostage taking
he can still be found guilty of the murder if the crown can prove request degree of
knowledge what if Morgan just stabbed the president to get media attention did not want
to kill him did not want to harm him severe he just want to get media attention the crown
has to prove the same thing or some thing different the crown has to prove that the
reasonable person could have foresee the consequence because of objective mens
rea because assault is objective mens rea offense not a subjective mens rea offense so the
crown would have to only prove that Sunil ought to have known that a reasonable person
would they have known that this is the probable consequence of carrying out the common
intention and the common intention is the initial plan would a reasonable person have
know that carrying out an hostage taking that an assault isthe probable consequence and
again this is an easier argument to make because certain circumstance that they were both
armed and that they thought that they are going to use any way, a reasonable person
would have foreseen the consequence than making the argument that he actually knew.
What we do with and how we treat individual in the system that suffers from mental
illness. we are talking about people who commit offenses as a result of mental illness.
Automatism, actus reas requirement that every act must be voluntary, to some
circumstances that we find that someones act is involuntarily we call that automatism we
talked about non insane automatism as sort of load the head circumstances
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 15 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
Monthly
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.