Criminal Law Exam- Block 3

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