Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
WLU (6,000)
LY (10)
LY205 (4)
Final

LY205 Study Guide - Final Guide: Antisocial Personality Disorder, Mania, Major Depressive Disorder


Department
Law & Society
Course Code
LY205
Professor
Patricia O' Reilly
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 10 pages of the document.
Exam Review Criminal Law-2nd Midterm Exam
Chapter 5
What is objective liability?
Offences involving criminal negligence
Unlawful act manslaughter
Elevated standard of care
What did Justice McLachlin state in the Creighton case 1993
Marked departure test
Why is a uniform standard of conduct in the test for objective liability
offences imposing objective liability
Dangerous driving
Careless driving
What is the difference between mere carelessness and criminal negligence
manslaughter
Cases
Creighton Scc1993
Tutton and Tutton SCC1989
Hundal SCC1993
Reed SCC1998
Offences of:
Unlawfully causing bodily harm
Assault causing bodily harm
Criminal negligence
Criminal code sections imposing special standard of case
2 examples in text of S216CCC and S 79 and S 86(1) CCC
Chapter 6
True crimes versus regulatory offences –difference
In a true crime the crown has to prove (in addition to actus reus
elements) one or more of the following forms of mens rea
intention
knowledge
recklessness
wilful blindness

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

criminal negligence (standard of the ordinary person)
In cases of regulatory offences the crown normally only has to prove
the actus reus elements. regulatory offences in the past were
described as being offences of absolute liability` - no room to argue
that they were not to blame
Distinction between absolute and strict liability in the context of regulatory
offences
regulatory offences in the past were described as being offences of
absolute liability` - no room to argue that they were not to blame
Pin Yuen (1921) – absolute liability – public welfare offence
Absolute
administrative efficiency (proving mens rea takes time and money)
Strict
regulatory offences in which Canadian courts apply the “halfway
house” approach
able to raise the defence of due diligence
distinguishing between the two
overall regulatory pattern adopted by the legislature
The subject matter of the legislation
the importance of the penalty
the precision of the language
Sault Ste. Marie (1978)
Supreme court endorses the halfway house approach
the accused was a municipal corporation that had been charged with
the offence of “discharging, causing to be discharged or permitting to
be dicharged or deposited materials into a body of water or on the
shore or bbank, or in sucha place that might impair the quality of the
water.
The city entered into an agreemet with a private company for the
disposal of all of the city's refuse
water pollution resulted from this method of garbage disposal
fell within category of strict liability
new trial was ordered in which the city would have the opportunity to
show it had acted with such “due diligence”
What is the half way house approach?
Based on the notion that it should be possible for defendents who are
charged with regulatory offences to advance the defence that they
were not negligent
finds a middle ground
provides that the Crown merely has to prove that the accused
committed the actus reus elements of the regulatory offence – then

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

the burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish his or her
innocence by proving on the balance of probabilities he or she was not
negligent
they are able to raise a defence but they must establish due diligence
strict liability – regulatory offences in which Canadian courts apply the
“halfway house” approach
The 3 categories of offences since the Sault Ste. Marie Case (1978)
Offences in which the existence of mens rea must be proved by the
crown beyond a reasonable doubt
true crimes
some regulatory offences (wilfully, or knowingly)
Strict liability offences, in which there is no necessity for the Crown to
prove the existence of mens rea (however, defendents may avoid
liability by proving they acted with due diligence)
Absolute liability offences, in which there is no necessity for the Crown
to prove the existence of mens rea and in which it is not open to
defendants to avoid liability by proving that they acted with “due
diligence”
Chapter 7
-various modes of participation in a criminal offence
-actually committing an offence
-actus reus of aiding and abetting
Cases
Boudreau (2005) N.S. Court of Appeal p. 166
Facts
Decision
Chaulk SCC- 1999 facts and decision
Parks SCC 1992
Chapter 8 rd pg 205-209
Different causes of automatism
defence applies where an accused person has committed the act or
omission that constitutes the basis for the criminal charge laid against
him or her but is found not criminally responsible because of a severe
impairment of mental capacity
when an accused person acts involuntarily because of some form of
temporary impairment of his or her mental faculties, such as clouded
consciousness due to a blow to the head.
Successful defence of automatism gains an outright acquittal without
being subject to any restrictions on his or her liberty
state of impaired consciousness with no voluntary control over the
action
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version