Study Guides (238,549)
Canada (115,195)
Law (360)
LAWS 2302 (28)
all (10)

2302 exam notes.docx

43 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
LAWS 2302

Introduction Elements of a CrimeActus Reusthe guilty act oConduct oCircumstance oConsequence Mens Reathe guilty mind Must coincide in timeR v Thorne NB CA oAppellant involved in prison riot with 30 prisoners convictedoAppealed with claim of no evidence being brought forth regarding riot was not convicted because no evidence oCriminal Code s 68 Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who b does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in s 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made or The Act RequirementCommission of an Unlawful ActIntroductionWhy the guilty act requirementoImpossibility of proving a purely mental state o2 reasonsDifficulty between distinguishing daydreamfixed intention in absence of behaviour tending towards crime intendedUndesirability of spreading the criminal law so wide as to cover mental state that the accused might be too irresolute even to begin to translate into action Legal aspects of actus reus act requirementoCommission of an unlawful actoOmission where there was a legal duty to act oVoluntariness oActing through an innocent agent oCausation Commissions of and unlawful act Simple example public mischief o140 1 every one commits public mischief who with intent to mislead causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by oC reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committedo2 Every one who commits public mischief Complex example abduction of a person under 16 o280 1 Every one who without lawful authority takes or causes to be taken an unmarried person under the age of sixteen years out of the possession of and against the will of the parent or guardian of that person or of any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person is guilty of an indictable offenceHere there are 5 circumstances for the crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain convictionCausing Disturbance in Public Place R v Lohnes 1992 1 SCR 167 oYelled obscene thing to Mr Porter because of noise Mr Porter filed complainto175 1 Every one who oA not being in a dwellinghouse causes a disturbance in or near a public place I by fighting screaming shouting swearing singing or using insulting or obscene language Ii by being drunk orIiiby impeding or molesting other persons o is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction oAnalysis of disturbancePrevious authorities Principles of statutory interpretations Disturbance has many meanings Objective is protection of public from disorder calculated to interfere with the publics normal activities Policy considerations oConclusionSomething more that mere emotional upsetExternally manifested disturbance of public peace in the sense of interference with ordinary and customary use of the premises by the public Deeming Provisions Crown must prove particular element is met is sometimes easier by presence of a deeming provision in Criminal Code Eg Entrance in relation to BEo350 For the purposes of sections 348 and 349 oA a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered andoB a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if Ii he entered without lawful justification or excuse the proof of which lies upon him by a permanent or temporary openingWhen counterfeit complete s 4611oNotwithstanding the money is not finished or perfected or does not exactly copy originalsTaking ore for scientific purpose s 333oNot considered theft to take minerals for scientific purpose from nonenclosed land not worked as a mine or quarry Vicarious Liability One person is automatically responsible for the wrongdoing of another solely on the basis of a relationship between the parties irrespective of whether that person was at fault or even acted Statutory provision now held unconstitutional In tort law masterservant relationship oTransfer liability for compensation makes senseIn criminal law limited application oTransfer of actus reus contrary to basic principles oR v BurtSask Vehicles Act quasicriminal legislation s 253 Owner of vehicle liable for any violationsof the Act in connection with the vehicle unless he can show it was not operated by him or with his consentPossession Offences Criminal Code definition of possessiono4 3 For the purpose of this Act oA a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowinglyIhas it in the actual possession of another orhas it in any place of himself or another person andIifor use or benefitoBwhere one of 2 persons with knowledge and consent of the rest has something in his possession it is deemed to be in possession of each and all of themR v Marshall 1969 3 CCC 149 Alta CAoNot necessary to decide whether control required sufficient here that judge erred in finding Marshall consented to possession of marijuana R v Terrence 1983 1 SCR 357oEvidence that the accused had some measure of control is essential element of possession under s 43R v Pham 2005 OJ No 5127 Ont CAoMajority Whether someone is in possession win s 43 is a question of fact Sufficient evidence here for judge to infer constructive possession see para 25oDissent Evidence here not capable of excluding reasonable inference that drugs were left by another during Phams 32hour absence R v Chalk 2007 227 CCC 3d 141 Ont CA oinnocent possession cases where possession exists in strictest sense but accusedspurpose must be consideredConsent making act lawful Lack of consent referred to as defence Consent of complainant operates in law to acquit it is better seen as denial that Crown has proved unlawful act R v Jobiden 1991 2 SCR 714 os 2651aan assault occurs when without the consent of another person one applies force intentionally to that person directly or indirectlyoSCC butthere is no consent where adults intentionally apply force causing serious hurt or nontrivial bodily harm to each other in the course of a fist fight or brawl R v BolducBird 1967 SCR 677os 1412 indecent assault if consent was obtained by false and fraudulent representations as to the nature and quality of the actoIssue to what did the victim giver her consentoCoerced consent law changed in 1983 see s 2653no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason offraud oR v Cuerrier 1998 2 SCR 371 Issue what is meant by the use of fraud in s 2653Different approaches suggestedFraud only vitiates consent where there is a significant risk of serious bodily harm
More Less

Related notes for LAWS 2302

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.