WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Mattress, Epiglottis, Criminal Negligence

5 views6 pages
Published on 23 Oct 2012
School
Course
Professor
WDW225 Lecture 5 10/18/2012
The End of Actus Reus
Actus Reus
- Set out in the Criminal Code
- Involves an act or omission
- May involve a specified consequence (causation)
- May involve a specific circumstances (lack of consent)
- Must be voluntary
o Must be conscious act
o Accused must have an operating mind
o Accused must be capable of making a decision
o
Voluntariness: Automatism
R. v. Stone (1999, S.C.C.) (major shift on the law of automatism, Stone changes the test)
Stabbed his wife 47 times; she insulted him; he felt a “woosh”; when he focussed again, she
had been stabbed
Two step approach
(1) did the accused act involuntarily?
- Burden on the accused (balance of probabilities)
the civil standard of proof, simply “more likely than not, 50%+1
(2) is it insane or non-insane automatism?
- Presumption (of voluntariness) that it is a disease of the mind (BIG change
from Parks and Rabey)
for the accused to approve that the act was voluntarily > call evidence on a balance
of probabilities
- Holistic test: does society require ongoing protection from the accused?
(internal/external, continuing anger, policy considerations, reasonableness of response)
insane automatism: not criminally responsible
non insane automatism: absolute acquittal
R. v. Luedecke (2008, Ont. C.A.)
FACTS: admitted he had non-consensual sex with the complainant; claimed he was asleep
at the time; had a history of engaging in sexual activity while asleep; acquitted at trial
ISSUES: was his conduct involuntary? if so, was it the produce of a mental disorder/disease
of the mind?
Doherty J.A.:
- Personifies one of the most difficult problems encountered in the criminal law.
- Sexually assaulted a defenceless, young victim while asleep.
- Automatism brought on by parasomnia renders his actions non-culpable
- Behaviour is potentially dangerous and raises legitimate public safety concerns.
- Outright acquittal does nothing to address the potential danger posed by the
respondent’s condition.
Doherty J.A.
- Conduct was involuntary
- Community has an interest in assessing and managing dangerousness
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
- Categorization as “mentally ill” not the issue
- Parks does not apply after Stone
o Presumed to be a disease of the mind
o Focus on risk of recurrence
Some evidence that it was the product of the disease of the mind
o Defining something as a “disease of the mind” is largely a policy
consideration
- New trial ordered to determine whether NCR
- The likelihood of reoccurrence
Automatism: insane vs. non-insane automastism
Everyones is presumed voluntarily, if presumed involuntarily will be categorized as insane
categories unless through medical elements > non-insane auomastism
“must not bring the justice system into disrepute”
Insane automastism
Non-insane automastism
- “Disease of the mind” – not purely a
medical decision
- Has legal, policy and medical
elements (exemption from liability;
protection of the public)
- Malfunctioning that is internal to the
accused
- Results in a finding that the accused
is “not criminally responsible on
account of a mental illness” – s. 16
- External cause
- Transient disturbance of
consciousness
- Results in a not guilty finding
because the actus reus was not
voluntary
Omissions
- Actus reus usually involves an act of commission (positive act)
- BUT can sometimes involve an act of omission (failure to act)
- For omission to be sufficient to establish crimina liability, there ust be a legal duty to
act
- Criminal Code creates legal duties
- Failure to carry out legal duty = actus reus
People v. Beardsley (US case)
- FACTS: Beardsley was charged with manslaughter in the death of Burns
- They had been drinking together at Beardsley’s house; both were extremely
intoxicated; Burns sent someone to buy her morphine; she took 3 morphine tablets;
Beardsley was too drunk to help her; he asked someone else in the house to assist
her; she never regained consciousness and died
THEORY OF LIABILITY:
- Beardsley owed a “duty of care” to Burns to take steps to protect her; his failure to
take steps to protect her caused her death; his failure to act (omission) makes him
criminally liable
- ISSUE: did he have a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to save Burns? or is
it merely a moral obligation?
-
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 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.