CDN Crim Study Guide PDF

**CDN Crim Study Guide (all summaries)** [Week 1:] Only Federal Government can make criminal laws - Consists of a prohibition, imposing a penalty and directed at a public purpose Crimes are acts/lack of action, targeted at some evil/undesirable effect that the law (with proper penalties) f...

**CDN Crim Study Guide (all summaries)** [Week 1:] Only Federal Government can make criminal laws - Consists of a prohibition, imposing a penalty and directed at a public purpose Crimes are acts/lack of action, targeted at some evil/undesirable effect that the law (with proper penalties) forbids 4 Required Conditions for Acts to be Crimes: 1. Acts/behaviours deemed wrong by the majority 2. Acts must cause harm 3. Harm caused must be serious 4. Person must be punished for the act What happens with Provincial legislation that may be classified as criminal in nature? Basic principles require the conclusion that such legislation is invalid Provinces are in charge of public and reformatory prisons in their jurisdictions - Sentences \< 2yrs or awaiting bail hearings Canada used the adversary system, judge is the fact finder between the crown and defence - Disclosure requirement of the crown but no reciprocal requirement of the defence Types of offences: 1. Summary (less serious, max penalties of \$5k and/or 2yrs in Jail, 12mo limitation) 2. Indictable (more serious, penalties from 2yrs to life/5yrs if not specified, no limitation) 3. Hybrid (can be either Summary or Indictable, i.e assault, indecent act, breach of release order) [Week 2:] Sources of Criminal Law: - Common Law (ONLY CONTEMPT OF COURT REMAINS) - Statutes from legislation - Constitution - Charter (3Ps/Margarine test) Legislation may be classified as criminal if it possesses three prerequisites: 1\) a valid criminal law purpose 2\) backed by a prohibition and 3\) a penalty. Laws can be struck down as being vague, arbitrary, overbroad, or as grossly disproportionate. [Week 3:] Modern principle of interpretation is to be applied: the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then: If one version of the Code raises an ambiguity should look to the other official language version to determine whether its meaning is plain and unequivocal, and if it is that meaning applies. If there is still ambiguity, Look to resolve ambiguity by considering Charter values (i.e., version that aligns best with Charter values)  If still unclear/ambiguous, Apply strict construction rule: the one more favorable to accused While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, there is no such burden laid on the accused to prove his innocence. If at the end and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the accused, the prosecution has not met its burden, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal. [Week 4 and 5:] Three Types of Possession: 1. Personal: Knowledge, consent, control 2. Constructive: Knowledge which extends beyond quiescent (passive) knowledge and discloses some measure of control over the item 3. Joint: Knowledge, consent and a measure of control Knowledge can be inferred from circumstantial evidence [Week 7:] An omission can constitute actus reus in certain circumstances.   For omission to be a crime, must have a legal duty to act. Legal duty refers to duty imposed by statute or common law (at least according to OCA in Thornton).   An omission or failure to act will constitute actus reus and give rise to liability only when the law (common law or statute) imposes a legal duty to act, and the defendant is in breach of that duty.   Note: There is no legal duty (common law or statute) to aid someone who is in peril, even if the aid can be done without any risk to him or herself. \[If you are in Quebec there is legislation that requires you to assist unless danger to yourself or third person; or another valid reason.\] Voluntary conduct is a necessary element for criminal liability. Voluntariness is part of the actus reus requirement. No act can be criminal unless it is done voluntarily.   No actus reus unless it is the result of a willing mind at liberty to make a definite choice or decision. For an act to fulfill actus reus, it must be done purposefully, at one's own voluntary/free will. Generally, where it can be shown that the conduct of the accused is not of his conscious mind, then there is no actus reus. A defence that the act is involuntary entitles the accused to a complete and unqualified acquittal. The Crown always bears the burden of proving a voluntary act (BARD). However, there is a presumption in law that the accused acted voluntarily. [Week 8:] Causation, generally, is the causal relationship between conduct and the result Criminal responsibility for causation must be established in both fact and law: Factual causation: requires an inquiry into how the victim came to his or her death, in a medical or physical sense, and with the contribution of the accused to that result. In most cases, but not all, a "but for" inquiry answers the factual causation question. If the victim would not have died but for the actions of the accused, that act is a factual cause of death. Legal causation: the inquiry is directed at the question whether the accused person should be held criminally responsible for the consequences that occurred, or whether holding the accused responsible for the death would amount to punishing a moral innocent. It is informed by legal considerations such as the wording of the section of the offence and principles of interpretation. Significant contributing cause test for all homicides except first-degree murder (Smithers/Nette). Essential, substantial and integral cause test for first-degree murder (Harbottle/Nette) Causation and Intervening events/causes - 2 different analytical approaches to reconciling the accused's culpability and the connection between acts and death. The "reasonable foreseeability" and the "intentional, independent act" analysis may be used. Intervening acts/causes - 2 different analytical approaches to reconciling the accused's culpability and the connection between acts and death. - Both the "reasonable foreseeability" and the "intentional, independent act" approach may be useful in assessing legal causation depending on the specific factual matrix.  - They acknowledge that an intervening act that is reasonably foreseeable to the accused may well not break the chain of causation, and that an independent and intentional act by a third party may in some cases make it unfair to hold the accused responsible.  These approaches may be useful tools depending upon the factual context. They are helpful tools, but they are not determinative. [Week 9] Subjective faults: - Following are Subjective states of mind (the basis of most criminal liability): - Intention - Wilful blindness - Recklessness - In trying to ascertain what was going on in the accused's mind as the subjective approach demands, the trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from the accused actions or words at the time of his act or in the witness box (or both). - A person generally intends the consequences of their actions. This is a common sense inference (not a presumption). There is no rigid formula to the common sense inference - A persons intention can be inferred from what they say or do - A persons belief what they were doing was not wrong is not a defence' Objective fault: - That the conduct amounted to a marked (significant) departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances. If an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused. The question is -- what should the accused have known? - The test ensures that jurists take into consideration all relevant circumstances in the events surrounding the alleged offence and to give the accused an opportunity to raise a reasonable doubt about what a reasonable person would have thought in the particular situation in which the accused found himself - Only a reasonably held belief can operate to exonerate the accused - [No imprisonment may be imposed for an absolute liability offense. At a minimum, it must be a strict liability offence.] - The presumption of subjective mens rea ONLY applies to true crimes; not regulatory offences Week 10: Week 11: - The defence of provocation is the only defence exclusive to the offence of murder and if successful, reduces murder to manslaughter.   - **It applies only after the Crown has proven the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.**  - The defence consists of both objective and subjective elements.  - The ordinary person test is determined by objective standards; suddenness on subjective standards - Anger is not a stand-alone defence.  - The defence of provocation does not eliminate the need for proof of intention to kill (murder); but operates as an EXCUSE that has the effect of reducing murder to manslaughter - There are 3 legally relevant degrees of intoxication -- mild, moderate, advanced - Defence of intoxication and/or provocation and any other defence should not be considered in isolation - **mild drunkenness**, which induces relaxation of both inhibitions and socially acceptable behaviour.  This has never been accepted as a factor in determining whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea and the trial judge is not required to give any instruction on mild intoxication.  - **advanced intoxication**, i.e. intoxication to the point where the accused lacks the specific intent, to the extent of an impairment of the accused's foresight of the consequences of his or her act sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea.  A defence based on this level of intoxication applies only to specific intent offences and the extent of intoxication required to advance it successfully may vary, depending on the type of offence involved.  - **extreme intoxication akin to automatism**, which negates voluntariness and thus is a complete defence to criminal responsibility, but such a defence would be extremely rare  - Intoxication and Provocation do not need to be proven by Accused; they are considered by jury where there is an air of reality to the defence; the burden remains with the Crown to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt