Class Notes (808,110)
Canada (493,016)
Philosophy (1,278)

Class 18.docx

12 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Philosophy 2080
James Hildebrand

Class 18 More DefencesR v Paquette NOTE Some twists and turns in this case it is similar to Logan in that a general provision of the Code purports to make the accused person guilty of an offence by being with the principle offender Recall that although there are no common law criminal offences there are common law defences and the accused is able to avail himself of the common law defence of duressFactsaccused was called up by two coaccused Simard and Clermontdrive us to the Pop Shoppe were going to rob itif you dont well kill you if you dont wait for us well kill youhad a gun to threaten withdrove them to the Pop Shoppe Simard shot and killed an innocent bystanderSimard and Clermont pleaded guilty accused convicted under s212commit an offence when combine with others to form an intention for a common purposewas evidence of accuseds reluctance evidence he was forceddrove them there took off drove around the block coaccused tried three times to get into his carhe resistedheldtrial acquittedunder duress on appealconvicted set aside acquittal because of Dunbarcase Dunbaraccused lived with the bank robbers drove to and from a bank robbery teller was shot and killedhe shared in the profits court held that duress was codified in s20 of the Codesection says no intention where acting under threatsbut excludes threats compelling to commit murder treason robbery etc accused in this case conceded defence under the Code didnt apply but argued duress would negative the intention required to form common purpose under s692heldmotives were irrelevant motive to save life was motive not intentiontoo bad convicted court of appeal felt bound by Dunbar SCC s17 formerly s20applies to exonerate a principal offender not a party who has not actually committed the offenceif s17 defence doesnt applythen the common law defence of duress must applythe accused did not commit the robbery or murders17 defence doesnt apply to him back to s212did accused form common intention with coaccusedentitled to common law defencesduress looks at UK caseduress should applygenerally 193no defence to a charge of murder have to die yourself rather than kill an innocent personbutwhere no certainty inaction will save the victim no certainty that compliancedeath of a personthe general rule should not apply on reasoning of House of Lords in Lynch if duress available for aider and abettor in murder caseshould also be so in a robbery casedistinguished from Dunbaron the facts Dunbar knew the people was living with them had a criminal record kept some of the money etcalso Dunbarcourt thought duress as applied to what is now s212 concerns only motivewrongbad lawshould not be followed duress can establsh there is no common intention as required under Code
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.