The Issues
During the trial, the jury didn’t had an opportunity to consider the questions he wanted to ask. Instead, they were invited to finger out the definition of the criminal negligence, and must have the requirements of a criminal intent (“esprit criminal”) the meaning of which was not explained to them. The directions in which the judge in this regard suggested that the Crown had the burden of proving malice. It was too high to consider whether the Crown had relied on criminal negligence under section 219 or the carless handling of a firearm under section 86(2). With an overall display of the trial jury, the judge wasn’t properly instructed on the essential elements required to establish that Griffin’s death was caused by careless
During the trial, the jury didn’t had an opportunity to consider the questions he wanted to ask. Instead, they were invited to finger out the definition of the criminal negligence, and must have the requirements of a criminal intent (“esprit criminal”) the meaning of which was not explained to them. The directions in which the judge in this regard suggested that the Crown had the burden of proving malice. It was too high to consider whether the Crown had relied on criminal negligence under section 219 or the carless handling of a firearm under section 86(2). With an overall display of the trial jury, the judge wasn’t properly instructed on the essential elements required to establish that Griffin’s death was caused by careless