Criminal Defences in Canada

Criminal Defences

• Numerous defences available to accused persons in Canada. Some are based on innocence, while others provide reasons for the crime.
• A valid defence accepted by the court often leads to acquittal.
• Key terms: alibi, automatism, battered woman syndrome, defence, double jeopardy, duress, entrapment, not criminally responsible (NCR), provocation, and self-defence.

Alibi Defence

• Best possible defence; places the accused elsewhere at the time of the offence.
• Crown must disprove the alibi to prove guilt.
• An alibi statement must include: a statement that the accused was not present at the crime scene, an explanation of the accused's whereabouts, and the names of any witnesses.
• Accused must give name and address of anyone who can support the alibi; police investigate credibility.

Automatism

• Automatism is defined as a state of functioning without conscious control or effort.
• Two types: non-insane (non-mental disorder) and insane automatism
• Non-insane automatism is linked to external factors. Eg sleepwalking, hypoglycemia or severe psychological trauma.
• Insane automatism is caused by a "disease of the mind".
• Judge must decide whether the condition poses a recurring danger to the public.

Intoxication

• Intoxication can be a defence if the accused lacked the intent to commit the crime.
• Different from general intent offences (like assault).
• For a specific intent offence (like murder), accused must have formed the intent.

The Carter Defence

• A defence to drinking and driving, where the accused disputes the Breathalyzer results, claiming a machine malfunction or operator error.
• No longer an acceptable defence in Canada.

Battered Woman Syndrome

• A legal defence, recognized in some cases, where the accused acknowledges the act but argues that her abusive relationship led to the actions.
• Defence requires the accused to show the threat was immediate and reasonable based on the surrounding circumstances.

Necessity

• Defence used when the accused commits a crime due to immediate and urgent circumstances, claiming no other choice to avoid greater harm.
• Circumstance must be imminent and unavoidable; narrow scope of application.
• R.v. Perka (1984) is a leading case, recognizing necessity only in circumstances of imminent risk.

Duress

• Similar to necessity; accused commits a crime under threat of harm from another person.
• The threat must be immediate death or serious bodily harm.
• Less common than other defences.

Ignorance of the Law and Mistake of Fact

• Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
• A mistake of fact can be a defence if it negates the mens rea (guilty mind) required for the crime. This applies when the accused genuinely, honestly and reasonably made a mistake about the facts relating to the crime.

Entrapment

• Occurs when police induce someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed, where they had no reason to believe they were involved in the crime before.

Double Jeopardy

• A legal concept that protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offence.
• The Charter of Rights protects against this.

Provocation

• A defence that can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.
• The accused's actions were a response to a wrongful act or insult by the victim that provoked them to kill.
• Requires the accused to lose self-control in a reasonable way.

Other Defences

• Various other defences besides those listed, some may be outlined in criminal codes or by court precedents.