Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Actus Reus
The guilty act—the physical act or omission that constitutes a crime.
purpose of the Criminal Code
ensures consistency in the legal sysem, defines procedures for enforcement and trials
outlines what is considered right and wrong in society, making the consequences for wrongful acts clear
distinguish between knowledge, negligence, willful blindness
Knowledge – Being aware that an act is illegal and choosing to do it anyway.
Negligence – Failing to take reasonable care to prevent harm that a reasonable person could foresee, often by neglecting a duty or responsibility.
Willful Blindness – Deliberately ignoring or choosing not to inquire about something illegal when there are clear reasons to suspect wrongdoing.
difference between illegal and criminal
Illegal refers to anything that violates the law, whether it's criminal or not. This can include both criminal acts and civil violations (like breaking a contract or violating a regulation).
Criminal refers specifically to acts that are against criminal law, which are considered serious offenses punishable by the government, such as theft, assault, or murder.
all criminal acts are illegal, but not all illegal acts are criminal. Some illegal actions might only lead to civil penalties (like being sued) or fines.
difference between intent and mens rea
Intent is a type of mens rea, specifically when someone acts purposefully or deliberately to achieve a certain result.
Mens rea is the broader concept of criminal mental states, including intent but also recklessness, knowledge, and negligence.
ex: murder (specific intent), manslaughter (recklessness/negligence), both are mens rea
indictable offenses
Serious criminal offenses that require a formal charge (indictment) and typically a trial by judge and jury.
Examples: Murder, robbery, sexual assault.
Punishment: More severe penalties, such as long prison sentences.
summary offences
Less serious criminal offenses that are typically tried in lower courts without a jury.
Examples: Trespassing, petty theft, minor assault.
Punishment: Lighter penalties, such as fines or shorter prison sentences.
hybrid offence
crime that can be prosecuted as either a summary offence or an indictable offence, depending on the severity and circumstances.
self defense
use necessary/reasonable force
must feel that the threat is real, and force must not intentionallly cause death or serious bodily harm
battered woman syndrome
psychological conditions caused by severe domestic violence
can use self defence without an imminent threat
relies on feeling there is no other chioice than to use force
not a defence itself, a psychiatric explanation of an abused victim’s state of mind that can be used to justify self-defence
necessity
an excused due to immediate and urgent circumstances
must be imminent risk
provocation
partial defense to murder in Canadian law, reducing it to manslaughter if successfully argued. It is not a justification but rather a mitigating factor.
It applies when the accused:
Was suddenly provoked by a wrongful act or insult.
Reacted in the heat of passion before having time to cool down.
must be done as a response to something so insulting that can deprives an ordinary person of the power of self-control
police entrapment
police cannot coerce, forcefully encourage an individual to commit a crime
automatism
when a person acts involuntarily, meaning they had no conscious control over their actions. two main types: non-insane automatism and insane automatism
insane automatism (NCR)
A mental illness or disorder that impairs the person's ability to understand their actions.
at the time that the act was committed, they were suffering from a disorder rendering them incapable of appreciating the nature of the act or understanding that it was wrong
leads to a NCR ruling, meaning they will be under psychatric care rather than prison
non-insane automatism
“temporary insanity” - a person commits a crime without conscious control over their actions, due to an external factor (e.g., a seizure, sleepwalking, or a blow to the head).
Outcome: person is typically not guilty because they were not in control of their actions, and there's no underlying mental illness. They might be discharged or acquitted.
examples: sudden trauma, seizures, concussion, spiked drink —> uncontrollable act
necessity vs duress
necessity: crime committed to prevent imminent harm (breaking into someone’s house to escape a flood)
duress: crime committed under threats from another person
is ignorance of the law a valid defence?
no - however, mistake of fact can be though (counterfeit money, purchasing stolen goods)
when might a criminal law be ruled unconstitutional by the courts?
if the law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as infringing on fundamental rights like freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, or protection from cruel punishment
Outcome: The court may invalidate or modify the law to comply with constitutional standards.
prior to an NCR case moving forward, the courts must determine if the accused is fit to stand trial. at a fitness hearing, what questions are asked?
does the accused understand the nature of the proceedings?
does the accused understand the possible consequences of the proceedings?
can the accused communciate with their lawyer?
duress
crime is committed due to external pressure
requires threats of death/bodily harm from a person present at time of offence
criminal defense
the accused response to criminal charges
can deny actus reus or criminal intent (mens rea)
can argue that they have a valid excuse for what happened while committing the act
mens rea
The guilty mind—the decision to commit crime, or knowledge of wrongdoing when committing a crime.
Intent
The deliberate decision to commit a criminal act.
Specific intent: Committing an act with a further criminal purpose (e.g., theft to commit fraud).
General intent: Committing an act without an additional purpose (e.g., punching someone in anger).
Criminal state of mind
the accused may not intend the outcome of their actions, but they may have a certain “state of mind”
they are already engaged in a crime, and as a result, are responsible for any illegal consequences that follow, even if they weren’t intended
example:
Sharon shoplifts (has knowledge that she is committing a crime) → runs away and accidentally knocks someone over (causing injury)
she did not intend to assault them, but because she was already in the middle of commiting theft, she has a criminal state of mind
the law holds her responsible for other reasonably forseeable consequences
alibi
the best possible defence - places the accused somewhere else at the time that the offence occured (no actus reus at all)
what conidtions must be met for an alibi to be valid
names of witnesses to the alibi
statement indicating that the accused was absent from the location of the crime when it was committed
explanation of whereabouts
NAE: (naming absent explanations)
willfull blindness
Deliberately ignoring or choosing not to know something illegal is happening/closing mind to possible consequences of actions
ex: Accepting a package without asking what’s inside, despite strong suspicion of illegal contents (person can be liable even if they tried to avoid knowledge)
buying stolen goods
recklessness
consciously taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take/acting carelessly without considering the consequences of one’s actions.
Example: Texting while driving and causing an accident.
negligence/recklessness
negligence - carelessness/distractedness, failure to act responsibly
reckklessness - conscious/purposeful choice to take a particular course of action despite potential consequences
criminal negligence
failure to take precautions that any reasonable person would take to avoid causing harm to another person
in doing anything/omitting to do anything that it is their duty to do
Example: Leaving a loaded gun in a child’s reach, locking a child in a hot car, etc
what defines a “reasonable” person
their level of training/expertise
an objective standard used to decide whether someone’s actions were appropriate/negligent in a given situation.
someone of average intelligence, caution, judgement, understands basic laws, dangers
Knowledge
Being aware that an act is illegal but committing it anyway.
Example: Selling stolen goods while knowing they were stolen.
Motive
a potential reason why a person commits a crime (NOT A MENS REA)
is a way to prove that someone had a mens rea
ex: the courts may try to prove that a wife had the mens rea to kill her husband by examining their rocky relationship
types of incomplete crimes
conspiracy and attempt
why is conspiracy illegal?
because it involves two or more people planning to commit a crime.
aims to prevent crimes before they happen by punishing the planning stages, ensuring public safety.
holding individuals accountable for conspiracies stops harm and deters criminal behavior.
Attempt
Taking clear steps to commit a crime but failing to complete it.
the guilty act begins the moment mere preparation turn sinto an action required to commit the offence
Example: Trying to rob a store but getting caught before stealing anything.
conspiracy
an incomplete crime - agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, even if the crime is not completed → the planning itself is a crime
Example: Planning a bank robbery, even if it never happens.
purpose of criminal law
protect people
maintain order
preserve standards of public decency
Conditions for an act to be considered criminal
The act is considered wrong by society.
The harm is serious.
It harms the vulnerable.
The criminal justice system must handle the remedy.
WVSC (we seek violet cookies)
How do crimes affect society as a whole?
disrupt social order, create fear, and harm individuals and communities.
Who decides what public decency is?
Society, lawmakers, and courts through evolving values and legal interpretations.
Who creates the Criminal Code?
the federal government of Canada.
What influences the federal government when deciding what to criminalize?
Social values, public opinion, legal precedent, and political pressures.
criminalize
To make an act illegal under the Criminal Code.
Decriminalize
To remove criminal penalties but still have fines.
Legalize
To completely remove an act from the Criminal Code.
Why is criminal law considered public law?
crimes affect society as a whole, not just individual victims. the state/Crown prosecutes them rather than private parties suing each other
Why would lawmakers change a summary conviction offence to a hybrid offence?
To allow prosecutors flexibility in deciding whether to proceed as a summary or indictable offence based on severity.
What are the limitation periods for both types of offences?
Summary offences: 12 months.
Indictable offences: No limitation period.
What are the penalties for both types of offences?
Summary conviction offence: Fine up to $5000 or 6 months in jail.
Indictable offence: More severe penalties, including longer prison sentences.
equivalent terms in the us for summary and indictable offences
Summary Offence (Canada) ≈ Misdemeanor (U.S.)
Less serious crimes, lower penalties, no jury trial.
Indictable Offence (Canada) ≈ Felony (U.S.)
More serious crimes, higher penalties, potential jury trial.
Why is it important to have a free and open debate about proposed changes to criminal law?
Ensures diverse perspectives
Prevents unfair policies
Builds public trust
Refines ideas
Protects democracy
Holds leaders accountable
why would the crown proceed summarily
The crime is less severe or there’s mitigating evidence (e.g., no prior criminal record).
A faster trial is preferred (summary cases are handled in provincial courts without a jury).
Lower penalties are appropriate (e.g., fines or shorter jail sentences).
It reduces court backlog, allowing more serious cases to take priority.
general intent
intend to commit the act itself (like hitting someone), but you don't necessarily plan or foresee the exact outcome (like the person getting seriously injured). The focus is on the action, not the result.
specific intent
aiming to bring about a particular result (like planning to kill someone). It's about both the act and the intended consequence.
defense of intoxication and conditions for it to be valid
a person argues they were unable to form the intent necessary to commit a crime due to being intoxicated, either by drugs or alcohol.
not a valid defense except for specific intent crimes (and lowering it to a general intent crime)
exception: valid if the person was intoxicated without their knowledge or consent (like being drugged)
NCR (Not Criminally Responsible)
legal defense where a person is found not guilty due to a mental disorder that prevents them from understanding the nature of their crime.
Outcome: They may be detained, treated, or released with conditions instead of serving a prison sentence.
conditional discharge
release with conditions after a conviction, where the offender avoids a criminal record if they comply with the terms (e.g., probation, treatment).
Outcome: If conditions are met, no conviction is recorded; failure to comply can lead to further penalties.
absolute discharge
release after conviction with no conditions or criminal record, effectively treating the offense as if it never occurred.
Outcome: The offender is free to go without any legal consequences
the carter defense
legal argument that was used in Canadian criminal law where the accused argues that, despite failing a breathalyzer test, they honestly and reasonably believed they were not impaired.
However, the law now presumes the accuracy of breathalyzer results, making it much harder to challenge them without scientific evidence of malfunction or improper use.
conditions for the carter defense to be valid (before it was invalidated in Canada)
testify that they honestly and reasonably believed they were not impaired (people get drunk differently)
present expert of other evidence showing that the breathalyzer was malfunctioning
