Criminal Law Exam- Block 2

R v. Oakes (1986)

Oakes was found with hash oil and cash. He was charged with drug trafficking, but said it was for personal use. He argued the law's presumption of guilt violated his Charter rights

Why is the Oakes case significant?

Created the Oakes Test to decide if a law that limits Charter rights can be justified under Section 1, which allows “reasonable limits” on rights in a free and democratic society.

The Oakes test

a 2 part test to decide if a law limiting charter rights is a “reasonable limit”

1. Pressing and substantial objective - the law must aim to fix a serious and important issue in a free and democratic society

2. Proportionality- the law’s effects must be reasonable and fair. this includes 3 parts:

   • the law must be rationally connected to its goal

   • it should limit rights as little as possible

   • the benefits must outweigh the harm to rights

elements of a criminal offence

mens rea and actus reus. Both elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution to secure a conviction

What is actus reus?

the guilty act- the physical part of a crime. the crown must show the accused did something (like hitting someone) or failed to act when legally required (like not providing care)

Voluntariness: physical dimension

refers to the control an individual has over their body and actions. For an act to be considered voluntary in a legal sense, the accused must have conscious control over their physical actions (actus reus)

Voluntariness: Moral dimension

refers to the accused’s moral choice or free will when committing an offence (mens rea). includes whether the individual had the capacity to make a moral decision and whether external factors (e.g., necessity, duress) impaired their moral freedom

What is Mens Rea?

guilty mind, the mental state or intent required to commit the crime. the prosecution must prove that the act or omission was accompanied by a certain state of mind

elements of actus reus

conduct, circumstances and consequences

Conduct

the physical action or omission that constitutes the offence

Circumstances

the specific conditions or context in which the conduct occurs

Consequences

the result or outcome of the conduct, which the law deems criminal

Bodily Harm

any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person that is more than merely transient or trifling

 

More than transient or trifling

this phrase means the harm must be more than minor or short lived

Theft

Happens when someone steals something from someone else, without their consent and knowing they don’t have the right to take or use it

Homicide

a person commits homicide, when directly or indireclty, by any means, they cause death of a human being

culpable homicide

murder, manslaugter, and infanticide

non-culpable homicide

self-defence, accidents under lawful circumstances, justified use of force

Causation

the link between the accused’s actions and the resulting harm or consequences

Types of causation

factual and legal

Factual Causation

if it wasn’t for the action or omission would the consequences had happened? Determined using the “but-for-test”. in this context, the accused actions must be a necessary cause of the outcome

Legal Causation

whether the accused’s actions were a significant contributing cause to the harm

First-degree murder

planned and deliberate, made your mind up before killing the person (cold-blooded murder)

Second-degree murder

deliberate murder without the planning aspect (made your mind up on the spot). not always intentional

Manslaughter

did not intend to kill someone, but they were harmed in some way and ended up dying from the bodily harm

Infanticide

applies when a mother kills her newborn child under the influence of mental disturbance caused by childbirth or lactation, considered a lesser offence than murder due to the mother’s psychological state

Smither’s Test Principles

contributing cause, no need for sole or direct cause, thin skull principle

Contributing Cause

to prove causation in criminal law, the accused’s actions must be a significant factor in the harm or death, not just a small or unimportant part. Their actions must have helped bring about the outcome

No need for sole or direct cause

It is not necessary for the accused’s actions to be the sole or even primary cause of the death, as long as the actions are a significant contributing factor, causation is established

Thin Skull Principle

also known as “take your victim as you find them rule”. the accused is fully responsible for all resulting harm, even if a pre-existing condition or the victims frailty contributed to the severity of the outcome

Nette Test Key Principles

1. significant contributing cause - the accused’s actions must significantly contribute to the harm, without needing to be more than trivial

2. foreseeability- the accused must have been able to foresee that their actions could cause serious harm, especially if the victim is vulnerable (e.g., elderly)

3. No “beyond de minimis” requirement - the test doesn’t require proving the harm was more than trivial; it focuses on whether the actions were significantly harmful