GoatcookiemonsteraniLv1

1 May 2023

Can you read the text and answer this four questions down below?

Facts:

Chayocn Zora was changed with drug offences and granted bail in September 2015. As part of his bail conditions, he was placed under absolute curfew (house arrest), and was not allowed to leave his home except when accompanied by one of his parents or someone else approved by his bail supervisor. He was also subject to home checks by the police or his bail supervisor, and had to present himself at the door of his home within five minutes of one of these checks.

 

After being granted bail, police came to Zora's residence almost every evening for one month to check on him, Zora missed two checks on October 9th and 11th, when police came to his door around 10:30pm. He was charged with four breaches: two counts of breaching his curfew and two counts of not answering the door.

 

At the trial for the breaches, Zora's mother and girlfriend testified that they were with him on the days of the breaches. Zora testified that his bedroom was downstairs and across the house from the front door, and that it would have been very difficult to hear someone at the door from his room. He also had gone to bed early on these dates because be was going through withdrawal and was very tired. The judge acquitted him of the curfew breaches;, but convicted him of the breaches for not answering the door, saying that these charges (found under section 145(3)*** of the Criminal Code) were strict liability offences, meaning the prosecution did not need to show that Zora intended to commit the offences, just that he had.

 

On appeal, the British Colombia Superior Count found that section 145(3) requites an objective intent, meaning Zora was guilty if he had behaved in a way that was different from what a normal person under his bail conditions would have done. They found that this was the case, and dismissed Zora's appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Superior Court Zora appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

The Decision:

The Supreme Court found that section 145(3) requires a subjective intent.

Criminal offences usually require two components: actus reus (a guilty act) and mens rea (a guilty mind). This means that in order to convict a person, the prosecution must show that the person did something illegal, and also intended to do that illegal thing (Some minor offences, like speeding, are strict liability offences, and do not require any proof of intent.)

 

Mens rea can be complicated, because some offences require subjective intent, and some require objective intent. Subjective intent means the accused person actually knew they were breaking the law, and objective intent means that even if the accused did not know they were breaking the law, they should have known, because a reasonable person would have...

1. Do you agree with the courts decision in this case? Why or why not?

2. Do you think the objective standard is appropriate for certain offences? If so, what offences and why?

3. Can you give some examples of strict liability offences?

4. Why is the presumption of innocence such a crucial principle of our justice system?