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;
45 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
S. 718 CCC |
Guidelines for judge's in sentencing |
|
|
S. 42 YCJA |
guidelines for punishments available for youth |
|
|
Sentencing options |
- Probation - Jail - Conditional discharge - Absolute discharge - Intermittent sentence - Fine |
|
|
R. v. Ruzec |
- injected with heroine - forced to transport drugs from Yugoslavia to Canada or mother would be hurt - had a break in Greece where she could have sought help - Defense of duress - Allowed duress to be applied to a third party |
|
|
How can duress be applied to a third party? |
- No mens rea - they would not have committed the crime in any other circumstance |
|
|
S. 7 CCC |
Allows for the use of the defence of necessity but is not an official part of the CCC - cannot be in situation because of own actions - no other reasonable alternative |
|
|
S. 17 CCC |
Defense of duress - must be threat of imminent or future grievous harm - person must believe that aggressor will go through with it - no alternate route of escape - close connection between harm threatened and the harm of the crime - accused is not a party of a conspiracy |
|
|
R. v. Ryan |
- Hired hitman to kill husband but turned out to be an undercover cop - used defence of duress because of previous abuse - had gone to police many times but they told her to go to civil court |
|
|
R. v. Mackey |
- deals with consent - do people playing sports consent to a certain level of harm? - Hockey player slashed opponent and ended their career |
|
|
R. v. Jobadon |
- Deals with consent - bar fight - two adults can consent to a fight but it ends at simple assault |
|
|
R. v. Mack |
- Deals with entrapment - cop repeatedly asked Mack to sell drugs, he was a previous drug dealer - 6 months, eventually he said yes and was arrested |
|
|
R. v. Lavelli |
- Wife shot husband in the back of head with shotgun - years of physical and emotional abuse - at a dinner party he said "wait and see what happens after everyone leaves" - Argued self defence - court agreed because it was preemptive self defence, she stopped him before he could harm her |
|
|
R. v. Perka |
- ship broke down in Vancouver so they had to dock - carrying a lot of cannabis - charged with smuggling drugs on international waters - argued necessity - they said they didn't want to enter Canada with illegal drugs but had to because their boat would have sunk - court said no, they had the drugs and still were going to sell them therefore still a crime |
|
|
R. v. Roberts |
- Impaired driving - had to take mother to the hospital because she was ill - could have called an ambulance, cab, ect - argued necessity - convicted -appealed stating the trial judge didn't take her defence into consideration - thrown out because they said he did |
|
|
S. 16 CCC |
Defence of mental insanity |
|
|
Dabio |
- While intoxicated violently sexually assaulted a 65 year old women in a wheel chair - argued intoxication, said he had no mens rea - court said that intoxication does not eliminate mens rea |
|
|
Charter sections most often argued in court |
○ S. 7 life, liberty, security of the person
○ S. 8 unlawful search and seizure ○ S. 9 ○ S. 10 right to be made aware of reason for arrest ○ S. 11 right against unreasonable delays in trail ○ S. 24(1)(2) stay of proceeding, exclusion of evidence |
|
|
R. v. Holinsky |
- driving recklessly with friends in car - all friends are killed in crash |
|
|
S. 743.1 CCC |
Jail |
|
|
S. 732 CCC |
Intermiten sentence |
|
|
S. 731 CCC |
Probation |
|
|
S. 743 CCC |
Fine |
|
|
S. 730 CCC |
Conditional Discharge |
|
|
S. 38 YCJA |
Guidelines for how judges handle youth cases |
|
|
punishment for youth |
- Probation - Fine - Custody - closed - open - deferred -restitution - discharge |
|
|
R. v. Ladu |
1954
Charged with indecently interfering with a deceased body s. 167 CCC Ladu stumbled upon women’s body and attempted to engage in sexual interourse Found guilty, appealed, said he had no Mens Rea, said he did not know she was dead |
|
|
R. v. Droust |
Charged with 2 counts of first degree murder in case of his 2 children
No longer in love with his wife, having an affair Wanted to kill his wife, talked about his plan with some of his coworkers Night before cleaned vehicle with gasoline and placed more in the truck Car caught on fire when he was driving them Tried to put out fire with hands, then hit wife with a hammer Wife tried to save children but they had already died S. 212 culpable homicide Guilty because of recklessness Transfer of intent to children |
|
|
R. v. Jordan |
- charged with man slaughter - bar fight, victim sent to hospital and died because of treatment - law states that if there is a significant break or event in the causal chain than that is enough to detour the actus reus |
|
|
r. v. smith |
- fight between soldiers in germany - victim was stabbed - dropped twice when being carried to treatment - inadequate medical supplied - 75% chance of survival with proper care - smith found guilty |
|
|
R. v. Maven |
- bar fight - victim hit by multiple people - whose blow killed him? - court aquitted everyone - appealed - reasonable foreseeability |
|
|
R. v. Bearsey |
- party with his girlfriend - she takes pills - his wife comes home - she died - aquitted |
|
|
R. v. Thorton |
- donated blood when he knew he was HIV positive |
|
|
Strict Liability Offence |
Once crown has proven actus reus, the accused has a defence if they can show that they demonstrated due diligence
|
|
|
Absolute Liability Offence |
Due diligence does not matter, crown only has to prove that the act occurred
If section says shall than you have an absolute liability offence |
|
|
R. v. Wuen |
- sold pop, not allowed to have alcohol on premise - inspector found alcohol in some bottles - argued that he should not have to open every bottle to check for alcohol - no evidence he did anything improper |
|
|
R. v. Karker |
- prison riot - another prisoner said they would hurt Karker next time they saw him if he did not damage his cell - defence of duress was not accepted |
|
|
R. v. Paquette |
- Threatened if he did not drive them to robbery - was not present t time of robbery or killing of the pedestrian - was not there at time of offence therefore under the CCC could not sure the defence of duress - SCC allowed it, said he met the three criteria |
|
|
3 criteria for duress |
- immediate threat of death or grevious bodily harm - threat must be imminent - person must be present at time of offence |
|
|
S. 24 CCC |
Attempts ie attempted murder court/judge decides at which point the action is completed |
|
|
Sorelle and Bondet |
- go to fried chicken place at 10pm, normally closes at 11 - have masks, guns, knock on window, guy cleaning floor does not see them, they leave - Aquitted, did not go beyond mere preperation |
|
|
S. 464 CCC |
Couseling 1) Something amounting to counseling must be done, word, action or gesture 2) needs to be a recipient to counseling 3) action being counseled must be a criminal offence where the person can be charged |
|
|
R. v. Macleod |
- newspaper ran article detailing how to run a grow ope - found editor not guilty but publisher guilty |
|
|
S. 465 CCC |
Conspiracy 1) must be an agreement o carry out a criminal offence 2) must be a common designS |
|
|
S. 21 CCC |
Party to an offence three ways: 1) by actually committing the offence 2) by doing or omitting to do anything with the purpose of aiding someone to comit a crime 3) by abetting someone to commit the offence Defence: establish mere presence |
|
|
Dunlop and Sylvestor |
- 2 guys, wanted to become members of the Hells Angels gang
- Out with gang members, they decide they are going to kidnap and sexual assault this woman - About 15 guys begin assaulting this woman - SCC says not guilty, they were merely present |
