Actus Reus The actus reus of an offence requires and act or omission, physical voluntariness, and causation. Omissions



Download 63.66 Kb.
Page5/6
Date28.01.2021
Size63.66 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6
R v Beard – 1920 rape and murder of 13 yo. Difference between general and specific intent for intoxication.

R v Leary – Intoxication is not a defense to rape, which is general intent. MR to get drunk can substitute.

R v Bernard – Charter now. Majority still keep rule from Leary, but Wilson presents drunk to point of automatism.

R v Daviault – Seasoned alcoholic rapes a woman who is confined to a wheel chair after heavy drinking. Defense of automatism intoxication accepted for acquittal.

R v Flemming – Sexual assault finds s33.1 violates Charter for Ontario

R v SN – Sexual assault by one man against another in the drunk tank, which neither remembers. S33.1 upheld in NU.

Incapacity and Mental Disorder

R v DB – Indigenous youth in foster care with FAS. Presumption that young offenders are adults for certain crimes violates Charter.

R v McNaughton – Shoots secretary for PM due to delusions about the Tories. CL insanity available if incapable of appreciating quality of act or knowing it is wrong.

R v Oommen – Kills sleeping friend in apartment believing he conspired with local union to kill him and was surrounded. Believes elf-defense, paranoid psychosis.

R v Swain – Hits his wife believing he is fighting spirits. Schizophrenia. Doesn’t even see wife.

R v Abby – Believes he is God and the law doesn’t apply to him. Brings drugs across the boarder. Knows the law but still MD.

R v Cooper – Psychiatric outpatient kisses girl at dance then strangles her. MD is legal not expert determination and does not include self-induced or transient states.

Wikno v BC – Review board disposition. Board must prove real risk and annual review required.

Automatism

R v Bleta – Fight.  bumps head, seems to pass out, concussion. Gets up and fatally stabs the other guy.  has glazed eyes and jerky movements. Establishes sane automatism.

R v Rabey – Finds a note saying girl isn’t interested in him. Takes rock from geo lab and beats her with it. Only MD auto available as ordinary stresses cannot give rise to sane auto.

R v Quick – Insulin related hypoglycemia. Medical condition but error was in injection, which is external. Sane automatism.

R v Parks – Sleeping walking, drives across town and stabs in laws whom he had a good relationship with. Family and personal history of sleep walking. Sane automatism.

R v Stone – Claims wife yelled at him triggering dissociation and stabs her 47 times. No one believes him automatism claim. Trigger and victim should be different.

R v Fontaine – Knows hit man out for him. Shoots someone who comes into garage claiming he believed him to be hit man. Evidence for automatism must only have air of reality to go to jury.

Provocation

R v Hill – Homosexual advances by victim, 16 yo  pleads provocation and self-defense. Found provocation should have been left to jury.

R v Thibert – Shoots ex-wife lover in parking lot. Victim taunts and tries to use wife as shield after  pulls a gun. Provocation should have been left to jury.

R v Parent – Shoots estranged wife at meeting where she tried to buy his company shares as a part of divorce proceedings. No defense of anger.

R v Tran –  enters ex-wife’s locked apartment uninvited. Finds her with lover. No provocation allowed. Cannot be surprised while breaking in.

Self – Defense

R v Whynot – Extreme domestic violence. Victim threatens ’s son, she shoots him in his sleep. Self-defense should not have been left to the jury.

R v Lavallee – Domestic abuse. He hands her a gun and says if you don’t shoot me I will kill you. Allows expert evidence and self-defense for battered wife syndrome.




Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page