Podcast
Questions and Answers
What must be proven for an offence that prohibits a specific result?
What must be proven for an offence that prohibits a specific result?
Omitting to discharge a common law duty can result in criminal liability.
Omitting to discharge a common law duty can result in criminal liability.
True
What are the two elements of causation?
What are the two elements of causation?
Factual causation and legal causation
In assault cases, the actus reus is complete only when there is a voluntary, unconsented application of _____ .
In assault cases, the actus reus is complete only when there is a voluntary, unconsented application of _____ .
Signup and view all the answers
Match the following concepts with their definitions:
Match the following concepts with their definitions:
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following statements about consent in criminal law is true?
Which of the following statements about consent in criminal law is true?
Signup and view all the answers
The crown must prove only that the prohibited consequence occurred to establish causation.
The crown must prove only that the prohibited consequence occurred to establish causation.
Signup and view all the answers
When an offence specifies certain outcomes, the issue is whether the _____ consequence was caused by the accused actions.
When an offence specifies certain outcomes, the issue is whether the _____ consequence was caused by the accused actions.
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following is a key feature of criminal law?
Which of the following is a key feature of criminal law?
Signup and view all the answers
The principle of presumption of innocence guarantees that an accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.
The principle of presumption of innocence guarantees that an accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.
Signup and view all the answers
What does the term 'actus reus' refer to in criminal law?
What does the term 'actus reus' refer to in criminal law?
Signup and view all the answers
In the context of criminal offenses, the requirement that the act must be voluntary is known as _____ .
In the context of criminal offenses, the requirement that the act must be voluntary is known as _____ .
Signup and view all the answers
Which case established significant precedent regarding the 'quantum of proof' required in criminal cases?
Which case established significant precedent regarding the 'quantum of proof' required in criminal cases?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the principle of contemporaneity require in relation to mens rea and actus reus?
What does the principle of contemporaneity require in relation to mens rea and actus reus?
Signup and view all the answers
Match the following legal principles with their definitions:
Match the following legal principles with their definitions:
Signup and view all the answers
The Constitution Act, 1867 outlines the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, including aspects of criminal law.
The Constitution Act, 1867 outlines the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, including aspects of criminal law.
Signup and view all the answers
In the case of Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, the accused was found guilty because mens rea and actus reus occurred simultaneously.
In the case of Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, the accused was found guilty because mens rea and actus reus occurred simultaneously.
Signup and view all the answers
Identify one limitation placed on state power regarding criminal law as defined by the Charter.
Identify one limitation placed on state power regarding criminal law as defined by the Charter.
Signup and view all the answers
What is the key issue addressed in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police?
What is the key issue addressed in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police?
Signup and view all the answers
The principle that an act is not guilty unless there is also a guilty mind is encapsulated in the phrase, 'actus non facit reum nisi _____.'
The principle that an act is not guilty unless there is also a guilty mind is encapsulated in the phrase, 'actus non facit reum nisi _____.'
Signup and view all the answers
Match the following cases with their relevance to the principle of contemporaneity:
Match the following cases with their relevance to the principle of contemporaneity:
Signup and view all the answers
What was the dissent's belief regarding the nature of assault in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police?
What was the dissent's belief regarding the nature of assault in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police?
Signup and view all the answers
The majority opinion in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police characterized the sequence of events as one continuing act.
The majority opinion in Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police characterized the sequence of events as one continuing act.
Signup and view all the answers
What principle is violated if there is no temporal overlap between mens rea and actus reus?
What principle is violated if there is no temporal overlap between mens rea and actus reus?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Criminal Law - Fall 2024 Notes
- Criminal law is a system of public proscription and punishment that regulates violence
- Criminal law proscribes conduct
- Other areas of law focus on what to do in a specific situation or wrong, criminal law focuses on what you cannot do
- Criminal law involves imposing punishment on individuals for harming others
- The state is responsible for seeking punishment for crimes
- Criminal law is influenced by the political and social climate of the time
- Criminal laws are not always neutral, they can reflect political biases
- The Constitution Act, 1867, outlines the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments regarding criminal law
- Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law
- Provincial governments have jurisdiction over the administration of justice in the province.
- Federal/provincial jurisdiction over criminal law and the administration of justice can overlap
Constitutional Context
- Criminal law must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter)
- The Charter may place limits on state
- The Charter protects individual rights
- Provincial legislation exceeding constitutional limitations can be considered ultra vires and thus invalid
- Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives the federal government authority to legislate
- Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives the provinces authority over the administration of justice
- Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that any law inconsistent with the Constitution will be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency
- Section 25 of the Charter protects Aboriginal rights
Indigenous Law
- Section 25 of the Charter recognizes Aboriginal rights.
- Aboriginal rights are protected by the Charter
- Aboriginal rights may arise from treaties, Royal Proclamation of 1763 and land claims agreements
- The guarantee that Charter provides may not override any Aboriginal rights.
- R v Ippak (2018 NUCA 3) deals with Indigenous law and the exclusion of evidence in a case involving marijuana and a search that violated Indigenous law.
What Makes Law "Criminal"
- Switzman v Elbing and AG of Quebec (1957): Quebec's attempt to regulate communist materials was declared unconstitutional because the law interfered under the federal jurisdiction over property and civil rights
- R v Mortgentaler (1993): Alberta’s law prohibiting abortions outside of a hospital was ruled ultra vires. It dealt with federal limits on provincial powers, not about the practice itself.
- Reference Re Firearms (2000): The issue pertains to the division of power regarding fire arms regulation
The Criminal Code
- The Criminal Code consolidated all criminal laws into a single document, making it easier to apply and understand the law
Exhaustivity and the Criminal Code
- Laws and punishments should be codified (no crime or punishment without law)
Common Law Offences and Defences
- Criminal common law offences are no longer applicable as it is an implicit assumption of exhaustivity
- Common law offences can still exist through established precedent
- Courts cannot create new common law criminal offences.
- Exceptions to the general rule include contempt of court.
- Common law defences are still recognized
- Defences need not be explicitly named/provided for in the Criminal Code, established precedent or statutory interpretation can bring them into existence
- Accused can rely on common law defences
Quantum and Burden of Proof
- Presumption of Innocence: Accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
- Woolmington v DPP ([1935]): Established the principle that the burden of proof rests on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offence, not on the accused to prove their innocence.
Conduct or Actus Reus
- Actus Reus (guilty act): actions/omissions (with conditions/circumstances), voluntary
- Voluntariness: The accused's actions need to be voluntary; actions taken while unconscious or not in control are not voluntary.
- Acts and Omissions: Criminal liability can exist for omissions, but it depends on whether a legal duty to act exists.
- R v Larsonneur (1934): Accused deported from a country against their will, their actions weren’t considered voluntary in this case.
- R v Kilbride (1962): Court of Appeal held that the presence of a driver's license in the car did not meet the required legal test for strict liability (it was a reasonable response and not an act that was voluntary or caused the offense)
- R v King (1962): Court considered medical issues as intervening acts
Causation
- Factual Causation: "But for" test. Would the result have occurred without the accused's actions?
- Legal Causation: The accused’s actions must be a significant cause of the harm or result.
- Intervening Acts: An intervening event can break the causal link (if the intervening act was unforeseeable).
- Thin Skull Rule: In criminal law, the defendant takes the victim as they find them, with their pre-existing conditions.
- R v Winning (1973): Court focused on whether the false representations were the direct cause of the accused's getting credit from the company.
- R v Gentles (2016): Court considered factors regarding whether the accused's actions were the substantial cause of the victims death
Mistake of Fact
- Mistake of fact has to be objectively correct to be considered a valid defense
- Amato v The Queen [1982]: Crown must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- ignorance of the law is not a defence for crimes or regulatory offenses
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Related Documents
Description
Test your knowledge on key concepts of criminal law, including elements such as actus reus, causation, and the principles surrounding consent. This quiz will challenge your understanding of how specific outcomes relate to criminal liability and the responsibilities of the crown in proving an offense.
