Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Describe R. v. Ruzic |
- Allows for duress to be extended to 3rd party - Man threatens Ruzic's mother if she does not bring Heroine into Canada - She was assaulted and injected with heroine - There was a time-break where she could have warned someone |
|
|
How can duress to a 3rd party be reconciled? |
- No men's rea - They do not want to commit the offence even if they are not being threatened - The value of human life |
|
|
R. v. Ryan |
- Victim of abuse of her husband for many years - Her daughter had been threatened many times - Hired hitman, turned out to be undercover cop Trial judge said she did not qualify for duress, SCC said she did |
|
|
Define defence of Necessity |
- There was no other viable option but to commit the crime - There is a threat of imminent peril - Accused must establish there was no other reasonable opportunity for another course of action |
|
|
Lavolie case |
- Accused is victim of husband's abuse for years - Having party, husband tells Lavolie she's gonna get it after party - Lavolie shot husband in the back of the head by accident - No evidence of husband touching Lavolie that night - She was found not guilty because it was pre-emptive self defence |
|
|
s. 17 of CCC |
Defence of Duress |
|
|
s. 21 of CCC |
Party to an offence |
|
|
s. 7 of CCC (not an official code) |
Allows for possibility of using necessity defence |
|
|
s. 34 of CCC |
Self defence |
|
|
s. 19 of CCC |
Not criminally responsible (NCR) |
|
|
What are the 6 conditions to the defence of duress? |
1) Must be an explicit or implicit threat of present or future death/bodily harm 2) The accused must reasonably believe that the threat will be carried out 3) There is no safe avenue of escape 4) There must be a close temporal connection to the threat and the harm threatened 5) Proportionality between the threat and harm inflicted by the accused 6) The accused is not a party to a conspiracy |
|
|
R. v. Perka |
- Drug smugglers had to dock in Vancouver because boat was leaking - Charged with illegal importation into Canada - Argued necessity because they did not want to commit the crimes - Acquitted at trial level but Court of Appeal overturned - SCC ordered a new trial with a set guideline for the defence of necessity |
|
|
Ms. Roberts case |
- Impaired driving, argued necessity - Roberts had been drinking but her mother asked her to drive her to the hospital as problem with her heart - The trial judge struck down necessity because Roberts could have called a taxi, but chose to save money and break the law |
|
|
Self defence conditions |
- Force used must be reasonable and must be used to repel an attacker or get them to stop - Can defend your property or property for which you have control (house sitting considers under control) |
|
|
Can adults consent to fighting? |
Yes |
|
|
R. v. Mackey |
- Mackey charged with assault after slashing in a hockey game - Argued consent - Court accepted because it was a hockey game and there had been a lot of pushing and shoving |
|
|
Jobidon case |
- In a bar with friends, gets into exchange with deceased - Let's go fight outside they say - Haggar (deceased) gets hit in the head, falls down and dies - Jobidon is charged for manslaughter, and argued that Haggar had consented to the fight - Court said yes but there is a line and that line stops after simple assault - SCC made a policy decision to rule it down because the message would have been as long as you get drunk and get someone to agree to fight you then killing them is legal |
|
|
Papa John case |
- Honestly believing something is when in reality it is not - Realtor showed property to Papa John all day - Got lunch and had alcohol - Victim was sexually assaulted at Papa's residence but escaped - Papa John argued that he thought she wanted rough and kinky sex - SCC did not accept because under the circumstances, it did not make sense to think that, and instead it was he said/she said credibility |
|
|
Define Entrapment |
Unacceptable police enforcement procedure |
|
|
R. v. Mack |
- Undercover cop (as drug dealer) tried to get Mack to sell drugs over a course of 6 months - $340,000 worth of cocaine given to him by officer - Mack was busted as soon as he agreed to sell the cocaine - Mack argued he was harassed for so long to go back to his former life and if he had not had been harassed then he would not have committed the crime |
|
|
What is a stay of proceedings? |
Halt to legal proceedings in a trial. Court can lift the stay of proceedings. - Stay of proceedings is for entrapment trials because there is no not guilty/guilty in entrapment trials |
|
|
When was the Charter established? |
1982 |
|
|
s. 8 of Charter |
Secure against unreasonable search or seizure |
|
|
s. 2 of the Charter |
Fundamental freedoms - Freedom of religion - Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression - Freedom of peaceful assembly -Freedom of association |
|
|
s. 11 of the Charter |
Any person charged with an offence has the right to: - To be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence - To be tried within reasonable time - Not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence - Innocent until proven guilty - not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause .... |
|
|
s. 10 of Charter |
Everyone on arrest or detention has the right to: - To be informed promptly on the reasons why - To a lawyer without delay and be informed of the right - To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful |
|
|
s. 24(1) of Charter |
Stay of proceedings |
|
|
s. 24(2) of Charter |
Exclusion of evidence |
|
|
R.v. Ascoft |
- s. 11 Charter right to trial with reasonable amount of time after arrest |
|
|
R. v. Jordan & R. v. Williamson |
- Changed the law for unreasonable trial delay - Guy was released from jail for murder because he was waiting for trial for 4 years |
|
|
What is the new law for trial delays after R.v.Jordan and R.v.Williamson? |
- After 30 months delay, charges are dropped (superior court matters) - After 18 months delay, charges are dropped (Provincial court/Lower court matters) |
|
|
s. 16 of CCC |
Defence of insanity |
|
|
What is NCR? |
Not Criminally Responsible - Did not have the mens rea to commit the offence - After being deemed NCR, go to hospital and are reviewed by the Ontario Review Board for about 8 years |
|
|
Dabio Case |
- Intoxicated man assaults his wife - He first sexually assaulted her in her sleep - He claimed he had no recollection of assaulting her - Trial court acquitted him because intoxication got rid of the men's rea - SCC ordered a new trial because intoxication cannot simply waive liability for a criminal offence |
|
|
s. 9 of Charter |
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned |
|
|
How do people challenge the state for charter violations? |
People need to apply to the court |
|
|
Can the Crown or judge address that there is a Charter violation? |
No, it is all up to the defence/accused to bring up Charter violations |
