WDW101Y1 Study Guide - Final Guide: Willful Blindness, Navigational Aid, Homicide

42 views2 pages
Published on 10 Dec 2015
School
Course
Professor
Page:
of 2
Cases Outcomes____________________________________________________________
Margarine Reference Case : Crim law valid if aimed at public evil not econ/prop rights; provincial
jurisdiction
Frey v. Fedoruk : Can’t be committed of crime not in Crim Code; judges can’t rule if not in code
Heywood: 3 principles of fund. justice: crim. law can’t be overbroad (disproportionate to
objective), notice must be given of crim. offences, crim law can’t be vague (incapable of
meaningful interpretation by court)
Clay & Levine: Law cannot be arbitrary —> if it bears no relation to, inconsistent w/ its objective
Butler: Pornography laws violate Freedom of Expression, saved by s.1 b/c of harm; passed
Oakes test
Bedford: Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional; create dangers (prost. legal, public
communication /living off money illegal); focus on security of person not liberty
Chase : assault sexual when of a sexual nature: part touched/nature of, words/gestures,
intent/motive
Cuerrier: exposing sexual partner to HIV a prosecutable crime (aggravated assault) ->
J.A.: sexual assaults: consent only if constantly conscious; prior consent invalid if
unconsciousness
Jobidon: Consent not a defense for assault that may cause non-trivial harm (consented fight
causing death)
Peterson: Failing to provide necessities of life, being ‘under the care’ of someone a crime
Smithers: Causation outside ‘de minimis range’; used in offences requiring proof of causation
Keegstra:
Ryan: Duress & dom. violence; defense avail. when compelled to commit crime against 3 rd
party;
not abuser
Lavalle: Recognized battered woman syndrome; woman’s perspective relevant to inform the
reasonable person’s standard required for self defense
Hill: Mod. objective test:consider age/sex/orientation of ‘ordinary person’; context to objective test
Ly: Consideration of marital status, cultural background etc. in modified objective test if relevant
Vaillancourt: B/c of stigma attached to conviction of murder/theft, subjective mens rea required
Creighton: Mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter = foreseeability of bodily harm
Beatty: crim. Negligence: must be marked departure from standard to be labeled criminally liable
Ewanchuk: consent - Must take reasonable steps to obtain consent; Actus: Crown must prove
absence of consent, not implied consent. Mens: if consent(or absence) was communicated
Briscoe: prove willful blindness - active process of suppressing suspicion; substitutes for actual
knowledge when knowledge required for mens rea
Blondin: Willful Blindness proof of knowledge; subjective mens requires proof of what accused
knew
Dery: conspiring requires steps of forming agreement + intent to carry out plan
J.F. To be a party of conspiracy, have to take steps to carry out act + knowledge of conspiracy
Kirkness: Party liability; Principal & party can be convicted of diff. offences in same crime
Dunlop and Sylvester: Mere presence not enough to be a party; must do something to aid/abet
Swain: If person found fit for trial, they have right to control own defence
Stone: Acts assumed voluntary; burden on accused to prove otherwise; developed NCR test
Park: (non)insane automatism up to judge; i.e. sleepwalking non-insane; re-offense unlikely
Luedecke: acquittal for automatism does not address possible danger of repeat offences;
Abbey: must appreciate nature/quality of act’; understand physical consequences; not penal
Oommen: must poses ability to know right/wrong, apply knowledge & make choices rationally
Oakes Test: Used when Charter violation found (s.1); determine if violation reasonably justified: 1
pressing & substantial objective, 2 rational connection 3 minimum impairment 4 proportionality
b/w effects & objective
Defenses_____________________________________________________________________
Types: Excuses: Knowing act was wrong; should not be punished; assessment of human
weakness in emerg. Acquitted except. Provocation (duress, necessity) Justification: s/t better to
commit offence than obey law; motivated by noble object;’ good samaritan’;acquittal
Counsel: Actus: advise/encourage Mens: intend to counsel + intend offence be carried out
Attempt : Actus: act beyond mere preparation to further attempt Mens: intent to commit offence
Conspiracy : Actus: formation of agreement to commit offence Mens: intent to agree + intent
that agreement will be carried out
Provocation: arises once AR & MR proven; avail. In murder cases, reduces to manslaughter
Duress: Act made out of compulsion by threats of immediate death or harm
Misc Actus reus/mens rea_____________________________________________________
-must be voluntary; operating mind, capable of making decisions (incl. omissions)
Actus reus & consent: Not actus reus w/o consent, consent invalid when: application of force,
threats/fear of force, fraud, exercise of authority (fraud:
- consequences/causation sometimes essential element of crime i.e. counseling suicide/murder
- Assault: applies intentional force w/o consent of other sexual same but of sexual nature;
aggravated: woundling/maiming/endangering life 1st need assault
- s. 2 of Charter: Fund. freedoms: (a) conscience & religion; (b) thought, belief, opinion,
expression; press/media communication
s. 7 violated if: If it violates one or more of: rights, liberty & security of the person or If
inconsistent w/ principles of fundamental justice
- Principle & party equally liable but AR & MR dif. for each; can be convicted of diff. offences
Mens Rea & Knowledge: Knowledge often an element of mens rea, knowing & intent
whilst committing act; Crown has to prove. What if willfully blind/mistake
Absolute Liability Offence – only prove the actus reus –no mens rea (parking ticket)
Strict Liability Offence – crown prove actus but defence can raise due diligence
Mental Illness_________________________________________________________________
- To be a criminal, act must be voluntary; operating mind; capable of making decisions;
voluntariness: Non insane automatism: External cause, disturbance of consciousness, no
ongoing risk of recurrence, not disease of mind Insane automatism: ‘disease of mind’; not just a
medical decision, legal/policy/medical elements; exempt from liability; protection of public Steps
for insane/non-insane automatism: 1. Did accused act involuntary? - establish automatism;
burden on accused b/c assumed people act voluntarily; consider: severity of triggering stimulus;
medical history; evidence of motive 2. legal presumption: disease of mind - accused to prove
otherwise;holistic test: does society need ongoing protection from accused? policy considerations
Automatism: involuntary acts, state of mental unconsciousness/dissociation, w/o full awareness
Not Criminally Responsible To excuse from crim. liability - special verdict/status; not convicted
or acquitted; NCR test: (2 ways, need 1) 1 Incapable of appreciating nature/quality of act b/c
mental disorder 2 Incapable of knowing act wrong b/c mental disorder * Dif. tests, deal w/ dif.
Issues/cognitive capabilities
MURDER!____________________________________________________________________
Steps: 1 Is there a homicide? - directly/indirectly causes death; 2 Is the homicide culpable? -
causes death by unlawful act or crim. negligence 3 Is it murder? - means to cause death/harm
knows can cause death; reckless 4 1st/2nd? 1st when planned & deliberated/when a pol. officer
Crim. Negligence: Crim neg in doing/omitting & showing wanton/reckless disregard for lives

Document Summary

: can"t be committed of crime not in crim code; judges can"t rule if not in code. : assault sexual when of a sexual nature: part touched/nature of, words/gestures, : crim law valid if aimed at public evil not econ/prop rights; provincial. Heywood: 3 principles of fund. justice: crim. law can"t be overbroad (disproportionate to objective), notice must be given of crim. offences, crim law can"t be vague (incapable of meaningful interpretation by court) Clay & levine: law cannot be arbitrary > if it bears no relation to, inconsistent w/ its objective. Butler: pornography laws violate freedom of expression, saved by s. 1 b/c of harm; passed. Bedford: canada"s prostitution laws unconstitutional; create dangers (prost. legal, public communication /living off money illegal); focus on security of person not liberty. Cuerrier: exposing sexual partner to hiv a prosecutable crime (aggravated assault) -> : sexual assaults: consent only if constantly conscious; prior consent invalid if unconsciousness.