Study Guides (248,411)
Canada (121,518)
Philosophy (375)

Cases.docx

20 Pages
148 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
Philosophy 2080
Professor
James Hildebrand
Semester
Fall

Description
CasesR v ParksSomnambulismSleepwalkingCrown argueddisease of mindinternal causeshould be locked up Trial oDefense argumentnoninsane automatism oAccused acquitted Appeal oUpheld acquittalappeal dismissed oHeld that insanity must be caused by an abnormal condition oSleepwalking is a rare but normal condition of sleep SSC oRegarding disease of mindtwo considerationsScope of exemption from criminal responsibilitydetermining degree in which def was responsible Protection of the public oLamarMens Rea No disease of mindinsanity is not the case In a metal state caused by normal state of sleepnot an illnessno disease Act was performed in a state of unawareness caused by sleep Sleepwalking is common very rare for a sleepwalker to injure or to repeat violent conductoLa ForestActus Reus Must distinguish between noninsane automatisminsanity disease of the mind Brings up two considerations to determine whether there is a disease of mind Continuing natureif it will happen again then treat it as a disease Internal causeif there is something internal making the person actthen treat it as a disease Says two considerations dont fitare factors internal or externalReoccurrencevery unlikely Says only those who act voluntarily act criminally No need to worry about floodgateshard to prove sleepwalking R v Fagan Police officers footAssault any act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violenceDefense argued no assault because there was no intention to put car on foot and when he didnt move there was no action rather only omission which is not enough for charge Is the act complete when the car is on the foot and stopped or is it a continuous act until car is removed Actus reas and mens rea at same time if the act was finished cant add a later mens reaTrialAppeal oContinuouscontradicts strict construction doctrine Once he knew of officers foot heRemained in carSwitched off ignitionMaintained wheel on footFuck you you can waitindicates mens rea to leave on the footInitially unintentional became criminal when intention was formed oWith continuous definition mens rea to leave the car there and actus reus of continuing act Dissent oNo mere omission can be an assaultoOnce accident put car on footwhat more did he do to make an assault NothingoCar on the foot by its own weight own inertiaoAccused omitted to move itwrong to say he maintained car on foot he allowed it to remain on footDPP v MillerLit a cigarettefell asleep with itmattress caught firewoke up saw fire and went to sleep somewhere else When a personintentionally or recklessly causes damage commits an offence arson when fire Is actus reas present when start fire by accidentthen learn about firedont do anything about it oProblem arises because there is no intention originally When you see fire and dont do anything about it is there an act or omissionIs there a positive duty so that an omission can be an offence failure to extinguish the fire oOrdinarily omission is not a criminal offenceneed to have a lawful duty Is there a voluntary actResult crime The Criminal Damages Act makes harm to person or property a necessary element of the offence A result is requiredTrial oConvicted oOnce he started the fire and discovered ithe had a positive duty to stop it Appeal oConviction upheldoFound there was a continuing actstarted off as unintentional but became a conscious act when he knew of the fire and did nothing oOmission oPositive obligation when you wakeyou are aware that something youve done started the firehas the potential to cause harmyou make no steps to fix itfail to do anythingattract criminal liability because you were reckless not intentional House of Lords oDuty theoryonce you create the risk even if its accidental and once you are aware of the risk you createdlaw imposes a positive duty to do something oFailure to do anything attracts criminal liability R v City of Sault Ste Marie City hired Cherokee to dispose of garbageCherokee put garbage in a land fill site piled it upcovered up springs that flowed in Cannon CreekToo close to navigable waterwaypollution occurredCherokee convicted under statute Ont Water Resources Actprosecuted City under same statuteCity said we didnt know what they were doing not our faultStrict or absolute liability person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crimeTrial oFor defendantcity did not know anything as Cherokee was an independent contractor Appeal du Novo oNew trialcrown appealed oCity convicted as offence is one of strictabsolute liability Divisional court appeal from Provincial court ruling oSet aside judgmentcharge was duplicitous chargingconvicting one was enough oOffence needs mens reatherefore defendant wins Ontario Court of AppealoCrown appealed
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit