Law 120 criminal



Download 399.95 Kb.
Page3/18
Date02.02.2017
Size399.95 Kb.
#15899
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   18

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE


Information, or charging document, will list offenses the accused is charged with. Look up offense in Criminal Code and interpret it by carefully reading its terms to determine the:

Actus reus: physical element

Mens rea: mental element

Doing this will not answer every question, but it will answer many of them. Terms in the AR may be ambiguous - there are definitions in the sections and appendices in the CC. If there are no definitions to be found there, then look it up in the case law.

 

ACTUS REUS

MENS REA

Conduct

Intentional or reckless act or omission

Circumstances

Knowledge or willful blindness of circumstances

Consequences

Intend or be reckless as to the consequence

Causation

 

 

s. 347(1)(b)

Conduct: receiving interest

Circumstances: at a criminal rate (60%+ of credit advanced)

Consequences: n/a

 

s. 218

Conduct: abandoning a child

Circumstances: under 10 years of age, life or health likely to be endangered

Consequences: n/a

 

  1. THE ACTUS REUS


The actus reus is always specified in the CC.

QUESTIONS TO ASK

  1. What are the physical elements of the prohibited act?

  2. Are there are any presumptions which place a reverse burden on the accused?

 You can only be convicted of what's charged - EXCEPT there are offenses that are embedded in other offenses. Statute may specify that an offense is included in another offense, attempt-based offenses are included in offenses, and some offenses may be necessarily included in other offenses (assault within robbery, assault within assault causing bodily harm, etc.).

 

A. The Principle of Legality


You can't be convicted of something that wasn't criminalized at the time of the act's commission. Criminal law in Canada is entirely contained in CC - s. 9 abolished common law offenses. Constitutionalized in s. 11(g) of the Charter.

FREY v. FEDORUK [1950] SCC


FACTS

At the time, peeping was not specifically prohibited. The appellant Frey had left his truck to look into a window of a house at 11:15 P.M. A woman saw him looking in, and shouted, and her adult son took a butcher knife and went outside. He chased Frey, caught him, and called the police. The police, seeing footprints near the house, arrested Frey. Frey also alleged the police constable attacked him, although in court Frey mainly fought his arrest as false imprisonment.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal found the imprisonment was not false imprisonment, since Frey had, in the words of Justice O'Halloran, "disturbed their tranquillity and privacy in a manner that he would naturally expect to invite immediate violence against him." Frey appealed to SCC, arguing that he did not commit a criminal offense and so the imprisonment was false.



RULING

Appeal allowed with costs – if any course of conduct is now to be declared criminal, which has not up to the present time been so regarded, such declaration should be made by Parliament and not by the Courts

RATIO

No new common law offenses should be created - criminal law in Canada includes only those offenses in the Criminal Code and those existing common law offenses.

In 1955, s. 9 of Criminal Code abolishes common law criminal offenses, except contempt of court. Why? Because of inherent jurisdiction of Courts to control their own process that is constitutionally granted - can't rescind via statute.

B. Statutory Interpretation and the Actus Reus

R v. MOQUIN [2010] MBCA


FACTS

Moquin moved in with Ms. W and assaulted her on five occasions, on a number of which she suffered bruising and soreness on her hands and her throat, as well as lost hair. Trial judge found Ms. W credible and held that there was assault but none of the harm suffered by Ms. W rose to the level of "bodily harm." Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the facts to the law, which is an error of law.

RULING

Appeal held - acquittal set aside and conviction entered. Held that trial judge's analogies were irrelevant. Examined definitions of trifling and transient in prior case law, as well as serious bodily harm. Appellate decisions were found to have defined bodily harm more broadly than trial judge - not only interference to health, also interference to comfort.

RATIO

Bodily harm in "assault causing bodily harm" is broadly defined.




Download 399.95 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   18




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page