Presentation Transcript

1. Public law that declares acts to be crimes and prescribes punishments for those crimes
2. Anything that is defined as criminal in the Criminal Code or related federal statutes (i.e. Youth Criminal Justice Act, Food and Drugs Act, etc.)‏ Decided by Parliament – under the jurisdiction of the federal government; The Criminal Code is a reflection of society’s values – it changes as society’s values shift and the public pressures the government to do so.
3. Offences that fall under provincial jurisdiction, such as failing to wear a seatbelt, speeding, or drinking under age. Enforced by the courts, and may involve a substantial penalty, but are not “crimes” – no criminal record is given if you are found guilty of committing one of these acts.
4. The action harms other people; The action violates the basic values of society; Using the law to deal with the action does not violate the basic values of society; Criminal law can make a significant contribution to resolving the problem.
5. For an offence to be considered a crime, two elements must exist: ACTUS REUS (the physical element, or guilty action) and MENS REA (the mental element, or guilty mind). ACTUS REUS + MENS REA = A CRIME
6. Latin for the guilty action or deed; Voluntary Action: the action must be voluntary (willful, conscious acts) to be considered criminal. You cannot be held responsible for something you cannot control. For example, if you are in a car accident because you have a heart attack, you cannot be charged with dangerous or careless driving. Omission: failing to do something, i.e. leaving the scene of an accident, or failing to provide the necessities of life, are both considered to be crimes. State of Being: being in the possession of something illegal or being somewhere illegal, such as a betting house or a bawdy house.
7. In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the acquittal of Kenneth Parks. He drove approximately 20km, stabbed his mother-in-law to death and seriously injured his father-in-law. Charged with the murder and attempted murder of his in-laws, his defence argued successfully that he was in a state of automatism: he was sleepwalking at the time and therefore acted involuntarily. As a result of their successful defence, Parks was acquitted. Cases such as these where mental illness, alcohol consumption, the use of drugs, or even sleepwalking, illustrate the difficulties that can exist in proving actusreus.
8. Latin for “a guilty mind”; includes: KNOWLEDGE, INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, and WILFUL BLINDNESS - the act was intentional and the accused knew it was wrong, was negligent, reckless, or wilfully blind. Can be established by showing that the accused had the intent to commit the offence or knowledge that what he/she did was wrong.
9. Knowledge The individual must have some knowledge of the actusreus of the crime in order to have the mensrea. The awareness of certain facts that can be used to establish the necessary mensreafor a conviction. ignorance is not allowed as an excuse for committing an offence. For example, if you use a stolen credit card, the Crown only has to prove that you used the credit card.
10. Intent There are 2 kinds of intent; the type of intent varies depending on how the crime is defined in the Criminal Code: 1. General Intent – The desire to commit a wrongful act, with no ulterior motive or purpose (the accused to meant to commit the crime). Ahmed swings a golf club and hits Lasean. If he meant to hit Lasean, then he is guilty of assault. If it was an accident, then there is no crime. 2. Specific Intent – The desire to commit one wrongful act for the sake of accomplishing another. For example, if Josh strikes Scott with the intent of stealing his wallet, he has the specific intent to commit a robbery. To prove mensrea for robbery, the Crown would have to prove that he not only assaulted him, but he did so with the specific intent of stealing from him.
11. General intent is easier to prove, i.e. manslaughter (unintentional homicide) is easier to prove than murder (intentional, planned and deliberate homicide). Some defences are more likely to succeed against specific intent offences, i.e. intoxication. If you are extremely intoxicated and you break into a store and knock out the security guard, you could be charged with break and entering with the intent to commit robbery. You could plead not guilty due to intoxication, and the judge might rule in your favour, citing that you were too impaired to be able to form the necessary intent to actually commit the robbery.
12. INTENT IS NOT THE SAME AS MOTIVE! MOTIVE is the reason for committing an offence, but does NOT establish the guilt of the accused and is NOT the same as intent. INTENT refers to the state of mind with which an act is done or not done (the willingness to break the law). For example: The Latimer case Motive – to end his daughter’s suffering; Intent – to commit murder.
13. The DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT: when an illegal, unintended act results from an intent to commit another crime it is also an offence. For example, in the recent decision of the Jane Creba case, the accused was convicted of second-degree murder though there was doubt that he actually fired the weapon that killed her. The premise behind this decision was the idea of the doctrine of transferred intent – if you intend to shoot one person, but miss and shoot and kill another, you are still guilty of committing an offence.
14. RECKLESSNESS acting carelessly without regard for the consequences of your actions. You may not intend to harm someone, but if you understand the risks and proceed to act anyway, mensreawould exist. WILFUL BLINDNESS results when you suspect a harmful or criminal outcome, but you don’t ask the questions to confirm these suspicions (causes the knowledge requirement to be fulfilled).
15. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion about mensrea, a central issue being whether the intent meets the SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE standard. This is important to determine whether or not the conduct was deliberate. SUBJECTIVE STANDARD “Did the accused know the circumstances of his/her actions?” Concerns the accused’s state of mind at the time of the offence OBJECTIVE STANDARD “the accused ought to have known the circumstances of his/her actions.” Involves determining what a reasonable person would have understood, perceived, or foreseen in the circumstances, and little to do with the accused’s actual state of mind. Forms the basis of civil liability for negligence (carelessness)‏ The SUBJECTIVE standard is more difficult for the Crown to prove, hence the debate. In most criminal cases deliberate criminal conduct is clear.
16. Subjective vs. Objective Intent – Example: R. v. Tutton & Tutton Son a diabetic in need of insulin; Parents believed he would be healed by faith and stopped giving him his medication. The parents were warned that this could kill him; they agreed not to take him off the medication again but did, and their son died. They were charged with criminal negligence causing death. Defence claimed that the parents were acting in the best interests of their child and therefore not negligent. The Crown argued that any reasonable parent would have been able to foresee that without his required medication, the child would die, and since they failed to provide medical treatment for their child they were guilty of negligence. The SCC came back with a split 3 -3 decision, 3 providing the objective argument (that they should have known the consequences of their actions and were therefore guilty of manslaughter); 3 provided the subjective argument (that there is more of a need to determine what they actually did know/understand, which was their belief he would be healed by God and not responsible for his death, and should therefore be acquitted) which demonstrates the complexity behind this issue.
17. For the most part, crimes must have both elements (actusreus and mensrea) present to secure a conviction. There are some crimes, however, that do not. For these crimes, the Crown only needs to prove the actusreus. These are called REGULATORY offences – they regulate behaviour. These offences are classified as either a) ABSOLUTE LIABILITY or b) STRICT LIABILITY offences
18. Fault is not an issue; Guilt follows the mere doing of the prohibited act; No opportunity for the accused to exonerate themselves; Since there is little opportunity for a successful defence, prison terms are considered to be unconstitutional (see Re: B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, 1985). Example, If you are caught driving without a driver’s licence, you are automatically guilty whether or not you are aware that you are prohibited from driving.
19. The Crown does not have to prove mensrea because the doing of the prohibited action is enough to prove guilt, but the accused has the opportunity to prove that they took the reasonable care to avoid committing the offence, using the defence of DUE DILIGENCE. Example, offences that deal with the environment, health and safety issues, or offences dealing with the general welfare of the public.
20. Recommended Review: Read pages 275 – 287 of the chapter and complete the following questions: Confirm Your Understanding, p. 275 Q. 4, 5 Confirm Your Understanding, p. 282 Q. 4, 5 Connections: Law and the Media, p. 285-287 Q. 1, 2 Confirm Your Understanding, p. 289 Q. 5, 7 Think About the Law, p. 293 Q. 11 Apply the Law, p. 294 Q. 17