-Are they criminals? Professor.. ? would say violating a normative law, but not a
Philosophical problems with Davio
-Justice Sapinka is a legal realist, as he thinks that a judge would convict him juts
because the judge wants the case to come out in such a way that he had predetermined
the outcome. He let him go, but he lacked the mens rea, and possibly even the
-This allows you to use drunkenness as a general defence, as long as if you are drunk
enough that you become an automaton. Criminal code now says that you can not rely
on self-induced intoxication as an offence. Supreme Court says you can use it for any
-Specific intent offences are acceptable offences to use drunkenness as a defence for.
Read appendix at the back about this.
R. vs. Perka
-Drug smugglers filled boat with 33.46 tonnes of marijuana. Parked boat in national
waters on the Canadian coast. Brought cargo and boat ashore to save their lives.
-Argued defence of necessity that they had to either come ashore or drown. Claimed
they had no intention of smuggling drugs into Canada.
-Sometimes wrong things are done, and they can be excused, but not justified.
-In order to comply with the law, you don’t have a moral choice that would allow you
to comply. (Not smuggling drugs and dying.) Compliance with the law would pose an
intolerable burden on them (drowning).
-Situations of imminent peril makes your actions “normatively involuntary”. There
must be no legal alternative.
-Not a justification, it’s an excuse. Not a vindication or approval, but a moral
involuntariness. What are society’s expectations?
-Acquitted on their first trial, Supreme Court sent it back to find a legal alternative.
-Legal alternative: dump the pot, then come ashore.
Duress- if you’re under immediate threat, and someone is coercing you to do
something bad, then you have no choice other to do than what you did.
-People said to the guy that if he didn’t drive them to the popshop and wait for them
while they robbed this place, then they would kill him. One guy shot another person.
The guy was convicted because he was there so he was liable too.
-Acquitted at trial under offence of duress.
-Convicted later on. Drove bank robbers to and from robbery site, shared in the
-Court of dunbar says duress is codified. Can’t rely on this offence when someone is
compelling you to commit murder, treason, armed robbery. Can’t raise it to negate
-Formed a common purpose, not the principle offender.
-Common law defence: he did not form a common law intention. Duress should
apply. Where there’s no certainty that your inaction will save the victim, there’s no certainty that compliance will mean death. General restrictions on duress should not