Self-Defence in Law Cases

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

Under what condition can you legally use force in self-defense?

When you want to threaten someone.

When the threat feels real and imminent danger is present. (correct)

When you have a history of being attacked.

When you are provoked verbally.

What is the maximum level of force that can be used in self-defense?

Force that is necessary and not intended to cause death or serious harm. (correct)

Force that can potentially harm others.

Any amount of force to ensure personal safety.

As much force as needed to incapacitate the assailant.

In which situation can killing in self-defense be justified?

When there is a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. (correct)

When the attacker is verbally threatening you.

When the attack occurs in a public place.

When the victim is smaller than the aggressor.

Why did the self-defense claim fail in the case of R.v.Smith?

The defendant continued to confront the victim after passing them. Signup and view all the answers

What was the primary reason for Paice being charged with manslaughter?

He attacked the victim after they were unconscious. Signup and view all the answers

What are the key characteristics of the defense of necessity?

It applies only in situations where there is imminent risk. Signup and view all the answers

How was Ungar's driving behavior described in the charges against him?

He drove at a high speed weaving in and out of traffic. Signup and view all the answers

What was the Crown's argument regarding the defense of necessity in Ungar's case?

That there was no imminent threat present. Signup and view all the answers

What was the primary defense accepted by the trial judge in Ungar's case?

Necessity Signup and view all the answers

Who was found to have made mistakes in Ungar's case?

The police and the crown Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Dudley and Stephens, why was the necessity defense rejected?

The value of human lives was not quantifiable Signup and view all the answers

What was the role of Brooks in the Dudley and Stephens case?

He testified against Dudley and Stephens Signup and view all the answers

What did Justice Lampkin criticize regarding the trial's initiation in Ungar's case?

Unnecessary charges brought by the authorities Signup and view all the answers

Which circumstance does NOT allow for the defense of duress according to section 17 of the criminal code?

The threats must come from a minor Signup and view all the answers

How did Staff Insp. Larry Sinclair justify giving Dr. Kutryk a speeding ticket?

To prevent potential accidents Signup and view all the answers

What was a key factor in why the defense of duress failed in R. v. Keller?

The defendant had time to escape Signup and view all the answers

Why was R. v. Ruzic significant in terms of the defense of duress?

It deemed section 17 unconstitutional Signup and view all the answers

What was the dilemma faced by Dudley and Stephens in their case?

Choosing between own lives and a child's life Signup and view all the answers

What was noted about the relationship between law and morality by the judge in Dudley and Stephens?

Law and morality can be distinct from each other Signup and view all the answers

What evidence could Ruzic use to support his claim for common law duress?

Direct threats against family members Signup and view all the answers

What alternative action could the police officer have taken regarding Dr. Kutryk?

Escorted him to the hospital Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Self-Defence

Imminent danger: Self-defence is permissible only when imminent danger exists, and there's no alternative.
Perceived threat: The accused must genuinely perceive the threat as real.
Reasonable force: Force used must be proportionate to the threat, not intended to cause death or serious harm.
Justification for lethal force: A person can use lethal force only if they reasonably believe their life is in danger.
R.v. Smith: Self-defence failed due to excessive force. The accused wasn't facing imminent danger anymore, and the force used far surpassed what was necessary.

R. v. Paice

Manslaughter vs. Murder: Paice likely faced manslaughter charges as the act was likely not intentional. But intent to cause harm, knowing potentially fatal outcomes, may elevate the charge towards murder in such a case.
Self-defence (Paice case): The defence of self-defence failed because the force used was excessive after the victim was already incapacitated.

Necessity

Imminent Risk: The necessity defence applies only in cases of imminent risk.
No Alternative: The crime must be committed due to immediate urgency, with no other viable options.
R. v. Ungar: The defence of necessity was successful due to the urgency and life-threatening situation. The court recognized no legal alternative to the risky driving in such a critical situation. Police and Crown wrongly charged Ungar.

"Traffic Cop Holds Up Speeding Surgeon"

Officer's Justification: The officer likely argued that stopping the speeding surgeon avoided a potential accident, which would result in extended problems for both parties.
Alternative Approach: The officer could have used emergency lights and an escort, which would be a more effective approach.
Likely Outcome: The ticket was likely withdrawn following the above discussion.

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Necessity Defence Rejected: The necessity defence failed. The court determined that the accused could not choose which life to save in a case like this. This was difficult because the value of a human life is hard to quantify.
Measured Value: The accused's plan of which life to sacrifice was deemed inappropriate and morally unacceptable and that it's not a proper measure to determine which life to protect.
Morality vs. Law: The law and morality are intertwined, although they are not synonymous.
Brooks' Non-Prosecution: Brooks likely avoided charges as he disagreed with the killing and testified against the other accused, thus not benefiting from the killing.

Duress

Essentials of Duress: Duress is valid when a person commits a crime as a direct result of credible threats of death or serious bodily harm, and that the offender is immediately present. Offenses like murder usually don't allow a duress defence.
R. v. Keller: Duress failed because the threats were not imminent, and there was time for a safe escape or other alternatives.
R. v. Ruzic: The defendant in this case challenged the requirement for the threatener to be present and the threat to be immediate.
Common Law vs. Statutory Duress: Common law duress is broader than the statutory defence. Common law does not require the threatener to be physically present; the threat can be future-oriented or made against someone else.
Ruzic's Facts: Ruzic could rely on facts like harm to herself and threats against her mother as arguments for common law duress.
Keller vs Ruzic: Since Section 17 was struck in Ruzic, in future similar cases, the common law duress is the only applicable defense.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Explore the principles of self-defence in legal contexts through landmark cases like R. v. Smith and R. v. Paice. Understand the criteria for permissible self-defence, including imminent danger and reasonable force. This quiz examines the nuances of legal definitions surrounding self-defence, manslaughter, and murder.