Law 120 criminal
Download 399.95 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW
- R v MOYER (1994) SCC
TABLE OF CONTENTS1.INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW 3 R v MOYER (1994) SCC 4 2.PROVING THE CRIME 4 R v LIFCHUS [1997] SCC 5 R v JHS [2008] SCC 6 R v STARR [1997] SCC 6 R v OAKES (1986) SCC 6 R v DOWNEY [1992] SCC 7 R v WHYTE [1988] SCC 9 3.ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE 9 4.THE ACTUS REUS 10 A. The Principle of Legality 10 FREY v. FEDORUK [1950] SCC 10 B. Statutory Interpretation and the Actus Reus 11 R v. MOQUIN [2010] MBCA 11 C. OMISSIONS 11 R v. FAGAN [1968] UK CA 11 R v. MOORE [1978] SCC 11 R v. THORNTON [1991] Ontario CA 12 D. VOLUNTARINESS 12 R v JIANG [2007] BCCA 13 R v LUCKI [1955] BCCA 13 5.CAUSATION 13 R v SMITH [1959] UK CA 13 R v. SMITHERS [1978] SCC 13 R v. HARBOTTLE [1993] SCC 14 R v. BLAUE [1975] UK CA 14 R v. NETTE [2001] SCC 14 R v. JSR [2008] SCC 15 R v. MAYBIN [2012] SCC 15 6.MENS REA 16 R v BEAVER [1957] SCC 16 R v BUZZANGA & DUROCHER [1980] Ont. CA 17 R v THEROUX [1993] SCC 17 R v BLONDIN [1971] SCC 18 R v. BRISCOE [2010] SCC 18 R v. LEWIS [1979] SCC 18 R v. GORDON [2009] SCC 19 7.MENS REA AND THE CHARTER 19 REFERENCE RE SECTION 94(2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT [1986] SCC 20 R v VAILLANCOURT [1987] SCC 20 R v MARTINEAU [1999] SCC 20 R v SHAND [2011] ONT CA 21 R v DESOUSA [1992] SCC 21 R v CREIGHTON [1993] SCC 22 8.DEPARTURES FROM SUBJECTIVE MENS REA 22 R v SAULT STE. MARIE [1978] SCC 23 R v CHAPIN [1979] SCC 23 R v RAHAM [2010] ONT CA 23 R v TUTTON (1989) SCC 24 R v JF (2008) SCC 24 R v HUNDAL [1993] SCC 25 R v BEATTY [2008] SCC 25 R v ROY [2012] SCC 26 9.MISTAKE 27 A.MISTAKE OF FACT 27 R v KUNDEUS [2012] SCC 27 R v PAPPAJOHN [1980] SCC 28 R v EWANCHUK [1999] SCC 28 B.MISTAKE OF LAW 29 R v CAMPBELL & MLYNARCHUK [1973] AB DC 30 LÉVIS (CITY) v TÉTREAULT; LÉVIS (CITY) v 2629-4470 QUÉBEC INC [2001] SCC 30 10.INTOXICATION & PROVOCATION 31 A.INTOXICATION 31 R v BERNARD [1988] SCC 31 R v DAVIAULT [1994] SCC 32 R v DRADER[2009] BC PROV CT 33 R v PENNE [1990] SCC 33 B.PROVOCATION 33 R v HILL [1985] SCC 33 R v THIBERT [1996] SCC 34 R v TRAN [2010] SCC 34 R v GILL [2009] ON CA 35 R v NEALY [1986] ON CA 36 11.MENTAL DISORDER 36 A.THE DEFENCE OF MENTAL DISORDER 36 R v COOPER [1980] SCC 37 R v CHAULK [1990] SCC 37 B.AUTOMATISM 38 R v RABEY [1977] SCC 38 R v PARKS [1990] SCC 38 R v STONE [1999] SCC 39 C.RELATIONSHIP WITH INTOXICATION 39 R v BOUCHARD-LEBRUN [2011] SCC 39 D.FITNESS TO STAND TO TRIAL 40 12.SELF-DEFENCE 41 6 ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENCE 41 R v LAVALLEE [1990] SCC 42 R v PÉTEL [1994] SCC 43 R v MALOTT [1998] SCC 43 INCONSISTENT SELF-DEFENCE PROVISIONS 44 R v McINTOSH [1995] SCC 44 R v CINOUS [2002] SCC 44 13.DEFENCE OF NECESSITY & DURESS 45 A.NECESSITY 45 R v PERKA, NELSON, HINES & JOHNSON [1984] SCC 46 R v LATIMER [2001] SCC 46 R v UNGAR [2002] ONT CJ 47 RE A (CHILDREN) (CONJOINED TWINS: SURGICAL SEPARATION) [2001] UK CA 47 R v WALDNER [2001] MB Prov Ct 47 MCMILLAN BLOEDEL v SIMPSON ET AL [1994] BCJ 47 HIBBERT v THE QUEEN [1995] SCC 48 R v RUZIC [2001] SCC 48 R v RYAN [2012] SCC 49 14.PARTICIPATORY LIMITS: ATTEMPTS & PARTIES 50 A.ATTEMPTS 50 R v ANCIO [1984] SCC 50 USA v DYNAR [1997] SCC 51 B.PARTIES 52 R v. BRISCOE [2010] SCC 52 R v FRASER [1984] BCCA 52 R v DUNLOP & SYLVESTER [1979] SCC 53 R v. JSR [2008] ON CA 53 R v THATCHER [1987] SCC 54 R v LOGAN [1990] SCC 54 15.SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETERS 55 A.PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING 55 R v SWEENEY [1992] BCCA 56 B.MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES 57 R v FERGUSON [2008] SCC 57 C.MAXIMUM SENTENCES 57 R v M(L) [2008] SCC 57 16.SECONDARY SENTENCING PRINCIPLES 57 A.ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND SENTENCING PRINCIPLES 57 R v GLADUE [1999] SCC 58 R v IPELLEE; R v LADUE [2012] SCC 58 B.PARITY AND TOTALITY 59 R v AKEPEW [2012] SKCA 59 C.MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 59 R v NASOGALUAK [2010] SCC 59 59 R v DRAPER [2010] MBCA 59
Sources of Criminal Law:
Unlike America, there is one criminal law for the entire country, and not for separate provinces/states. What happens if a province passes a law against assault? If you're charged under that statute, you could challenge its constitutionality and argue that the provincial law is ultra vires - outside the legislative competence of the provincial government.
The federal government has jurisdiction over penitentiaries.
The provincial government has jurisdiction over prisons and jails.
How does this work? Depending on the length of your sentence, you will go to a different institution. For sentences of less than 2 years, go to provincial jail. For sentences of more than 2 years, go to federal penitentiary. Judges will often give sentences of 2 years less a day for this reason. s 92 (13) BNA Provinces has jurisdiction over laws of property and civil rights in the province. There is overlap with the powers of the federal government - there may be areas of dual competences. Laws governing driving and motor vehicles have both provincial and federal origin. Federal law prohibits driving with BAC above 0.08 and driving while impaired. BC and AB have recently passed laws prohibiting driving with BAC above 0.05. BC also gave the police and crown the option to go the criminal code route or by an administrative regime which didn't have criminal record ramifications but had no option of appeal (this aspect was later overturned). The administrative regime was preferred while it was in operation. The Province can't create true criminal offenses (if you're convicted you get a provincial record, but not a criminal one). What happens if there's a conflict between provincial and federal law? Federal law supersedes provincial law = federal paramountcy. Canadian criminal law is codified in a centralized statute - the Criminal Code. There are a few serious indictable offenses in other statutes such as the Controlled Drugs Act and the Income Tax Act. The first Criminal Code came into effect on January 1, 1893 - abolished common law offenses. s 9 Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730 (a) if an offence at common law, (b) of an offence under an Act of the Parliament of England, or of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of an offence under an Act or ordinance in force in any province, territory or place before that province, territory or place became a province of Canada. This prevents the arbitrary application of the law by judges and allows Canadians to know what criminal offenses are simply by looking up the Criminal Code - no need to check common law. One exception to s. 9 - contempt of court. Contempt of court is widely understood, and is defined in common law rather than the Criminal Code.
Common law defenses are still allowed. This allows the courts and judges to create common law defenses to charges. This allows for more flexibility and fairness - this ability can only help the accused, and not hinder them. Sometimes, legislatures will step in after the creation of a new common law defense and codify it in one statute or another. Charter gives accused a number of basic rights which they can exercise before the court for remedies. One of the most common: if police obtained evidence in a manner that infringed on the accused's charter rights, that evidence may be excluded from the trial. The Charter also gives accused some positive rights - the right to a trial in English or French, or an interpreter in the event that the accused speaks neither language. R v MOYER (1994) SCC
Directory: application -> media -> cans application -> Application for Two-Year Extension in Authorized Period of Use of Micro Data application -> Application forms please fill out and sign the adequate application form application -> Application form cans -> Law 205: criminal law full Year can (2005-2006) Jennifer Lau cans -> Law 120 – Criminal Law – can silvana Lovera Professor Emma Cunliffe Table of Contents cans -> Testimonial or documentary or real must be: Relevant cans -> C’right: overview, 2 cans -> Table of contents section one an introduction to intellectual property cans -> Effect of a clause cans -> Criminal Law can table of Contents Download 399.95 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||