criminal law exam (3+4)

Harbottle Test Principles

1. higher causation standard for first degree murder- the accused’s actions must be a substantial and integral cause of the death, which is stricter than the standard for other homicides

2. Accountability for all participants- anyone involved in a murder during another crime (e.g. sexual assault) can be held liable for first-degree murder if their actions significantly caused the death

Mens Rea

the guilty mind. the mental state or intent requried to commit the crime. The prosecution must prove that the act or omission are accompanied by the appropriate level of intent or fault

Types of Mens rea

Objective and Subjective

Objective Mens rea

when the accused’s behaviour is assesses against what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. Often used in negligence based offences

Subjective Mens rea

Refers to the mental state of the accused at the time of the offence. Based on what they actually knew, intended, or foresaw

Types of Subjective Mens Rea

willlful blindness, knowledge, recklessness, and intent

Difference between objective mens rea and subjective mens rea

Subjective- what the particular offender was thinking, or should have known or done.

Objective- what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances

Intention

the accused consciously decides to commit the act in question. The outcome is either their goal, or they foresee it as virtually certain and still choose to proceed with the action

general intent

a crime where the crown only needs to prove that the accused intended to commit the act itself (the actus reus), without needing to show that the accused had any further intention beyond committing that act

Specific Intent

requires proof that the accused not only intended to commit true crime, but also had an additional, specific intention to bring about a further consequence or outcome

Knowledge

the accused being aware of the circumstances that make their actions criminal. The accused must be conscious of the relevant facts that make their actions illegal

Recklessness

involves the accused consciously taking an unjustifiable risk, knowing there is a possibility of causing harm or breaking the law, but proceeding anyway

Willful Blindness

occurs when the accused deliberately avoids obtaining knowledge of facts that would confirm the illegality of their actions

Forms of participation in a criminal offence

aiding and abetting, principal offender, conspiracy, counselling, accessory after the fact

Aiding

a person who helps in committing a crime is just as responsible as the main offender. to be convicted, they must have intended to assist or make the crime easier to commit

abetting

the act of encouraging, instigating, or inciting someone to commit a crime

Principal Offender

the person who actually commits the offence. The one whose actions directly fulfill the elements of the crime

Common Intention

when two or more people form a shared intention to commit an unlawful act, and during the course of carrying out that act, one or more of them commit additional offences

Conspiracy

an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence

Counselling

give instructions to someone else to commit a crime. Advising, encouraging, or persuading someone to commit a crime

Accessory After the fact

someone who, after a crime has been committed, helps the principal offender(s) avoid detention, arrest, prosecution, or conviction

Inchoate offences

unfulfilled offences

Types of Inchoate Offences

attempt

Attempt

Anyone who has an intent to commit a crime, and takes steps toward its commission, but fails to complete it can still be held criminally responsible

Mens Rea for Attempt

Intent

Actus Reus for attempt

a step beyond mere preparation, a step towards execution

Fitness to Stand Trial

ensure an accused individual has the mental capacity to fully understand and participate in their own defence during legal proceedings

M’Naghten Rules

A person may be acquitted of a crime, if, at the time, they had a mental disorder that either:

1. made them unable to understand what they were doing

2. prevented them from knowing that what they were doing was wrong

Mental Disorder

In Canadian criminal law refers to a “disease of the mind” that significantly impairs an individuals cognitive, emotional, or psychological functioning

Disease of the mind - a legal concept

its a legal concept, not just a medical one. while doctors use medical evidence to decide if someone has a mental disorder, it’s the judge’s role to decide if it qualifies as a “disease of the mind” under section 16 of the criminal code

When is an individual considered unfit to stand trial?

if they are unable to

1. understand the nature or object of the proceedings

2. understand the possible consequences of the proceedings

3. communicate with counsel effectively

Automatism

legal defence that refers to actions performed by an individual without conscious control or voluntary intent

What are Legal Defences?

Arguments or evidence that is presented by the accused in order to avoid or mitigate criminal responsibility

Air of Reality

it’s a basic requirement that there must be some evidence a jury could accept to possibly acquit the defendant.

What is the classification of legal defences?

justifications and excuses

Justifications

establish what you did was legal and lawful under the circumstances (e.g., self-defence, consent)

Excuses

the act or omission is illegal but the accused can be excused due to the circumstances. avoid criminal responsibility (ex., necessity or duress)

Necessity

committing a crime in order to avoid a greater harm

Necessity elements

imminent peril or danger, no reasonable legal alternative, and proportionality

Imminent Peril or Danger

the accused must face an immediate and serious threat of harm, where the illegal action is the only way to avoid a greater harm. Hypothetical or speculative threats do not count

No reasonable legal alternative

the accused must have had no legal, reasonable alternative to avoid the harm. This means they exhausted all other legal options before resorting to the illegal act

Proportionality

the harm caused by the illegal act must be less severe than the harm avoided. The response must be proportionate to the threat or peril the accused face

Duress

committing a crime under threat or under pressure/coercion. Duress is a legal defence

When does duress apply, when does it not apply?

Applies when someone commits a crime because they were threatened with immediate harm, like death or serious injury, and had no other choice

does not apply if the threat was not immediate or if the accused had other options to avoid committing the crime

Self-Defence

allows an individual to use force to protect themselves or others from unlawful aggression, provided the force used is reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced

Elements of self-defence

reasonable perception of force/threat of force, purpose of defending themselves/others, reasonableness of the response

Reasonable perception of force/threat of force

the accused must believe, on reasonable grounds, that they or someone else is facing imminent force. this belief must be objectively reasonable, meaning a reasonable person in similar circumstances would share the same belief

Purpose of defending themselves or others

the accused must act with the primary purpose of self-protection or protecting another person. If the force is used with other motives (e.g., revenge), the defence may not apply

reasonableness of the response

the force used in response to the threat must be reasonable in the circumstances, given the nature of the threat and the surrounding context

Provocation

Culpable homicide that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the accused acted “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation”

Provocation elements

1. a wrongful act

2. suddenness

3. immediate reaction

Wrongful act

provocation must be a wrongful act or insult that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. It must also be an indictable offence punishable by at least 5 years in prison

Suddenness

the act of provocation must occur suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving no time for the accused to regain control

immediate reaction

the accused must have acted in the heat of passion before having a chance to cool off

what are the principles of fundamental justice?

arbitrariness, overbreadth, gross disproportionality, and vagueness

Arbitrariness

a law is arbitrary if it has no rational connection to its objective or operates without reason or logic, thus violating individual rights unnecessarily

Overbreadth

a law is overbroad if it extends beyond what is necessary to achieve its purpose, infringing on rights more than required

Gross Disproportionality

the effects of a law are excessive or extreme in relation to its objective, making the impact on individual rights unjustifiably harsh

Vagueness

laws must be clear and precise so individuals can understand what is prohibited or required, preventing aribitrary enforcement

Burden of Proof Standard

the prosecution must prove criminal resposibility beyond a reasonable doubt. if the accused raises a defense that meets the air of reality test, it’s up to the Crown to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt

Exception of the burden of proof

defences of NCRMD and automatism the accused must establish the defence on a balance of probabilities

Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder

legal defence that is presented in court to assert that the offender did not have the right state of mind to appreciate the nature or quality of the act or to know that what they are doing was wrong

what is the nature of the act?

they think that what they are doing is completely different (e.g. they think that they are cutting a tree but they are actually hurting a person)

What is the quality of the act?

unable to perceive or appreciate the harm that they are inflicting