Actus Reus

Question 1

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 1

Beyond a Reasonable doubt is a unique standard that is not ordinarily employed in everyday life or in other areas of the law.

Prosecution has the duty to prove all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Elements (Actus Reus and Mens Rea) Vs Evidence: Crown needs to meet burden in each element of a case. Needs to prove elemetns and disprove any elements with an air of reality

Question 2

Substantive Criminal law

Answer 2

Principles that we use to see if someone is guilty

Actus Reus: Physical elements of an offence (conduct)

Mens Rea: guilty mind(fault)

Question 3

How to convict:

Answer 3

Need to have Statutory interpretation plus the common law.

Prosecution has to prove:

1. Voluntariness
2. Acts (and omissions)
3. Circumstances
4. Consequences and Causation

Question 3

Mens Rea

Answer 3

No guity act without a guilty mind

Question 4

Forms of Actus Reus

Answer 4

1. Act or Omission)(always)

2.Voluntary
Conduct (almost always, only unusual cases its contested)

2.Prescribed Circumstances
Causing Certain consequence

3. Causing certain consequences

All connect to physical conduct

Question 5

Vountariness

Answer 5

Actus Reus concept and not mens rea

IE someone steps into your line of fire: still voluntary, as you pulled the trigger, its not about what you think as its actus reus

Involuntary: someone put their hand over your hand and finger and pulled the trigger

Question 6

Automatism

Answer 6

species of involuntariness that is involuntary that involves complex actions that would normally be assumed to be voluntary

(sleep walking)

Question 7

Negligence Vs Recklessness

Answer 7

Recklessness is a more serious offense.

Negligence: should have done something and failed to do so.

Recklessness: deliberately engaged in dangerous behaviour fully knowing that it is dangerous and may injury someone or damage property. There is a willful disregard of people and property and a willingness to take on that risky behavior.

Question 8

Categories of Conduct

Answer 8

= What the crown has to prove

1. Voluntariness (Conscious and deliberate decision to act). Must be proven by the Crown.
2. Acts & Omissions: There is only a legal duty to act if parliament has made it clear in the offence (two types)
3. Circumstances
   -anything else the Crown has to prove as part of Actus Reus (eg consent ofen an issue)

Question 9

Voluntariness

Answer 9

(Conscious and deliberate decision to act). Must be proven by the Crown.

Voluntariness only addressed liability, not moral responsibility/ culpability

A aims the gun and pulls the tigger and B is injured, A is liable even if A did not mean to hit B

Question 10

Acts and Omissions

Answer 10

There is only a legal duty to act is parliament has made it clear in the offence

Two Types:
Specific omission offences

General omission offence

Also:
Statues
-Nixon (police Act) Positive obligation ensure safety of prisoners under care

Common Law (controversial and used as last resort)
ex- Miller (UK) starts fire in room and sleeps: If you fail to take reasonable steps to counter an act of previous conduct, then can be held liable

ex Thornton and HIV infected blood donation: general duty of care

Question 11

Specific omission offence

Answer 11

omission + duty in same provision

eg “everyone who commits an offence who fails, without reasonable exuse to…”

Question 12

General omission offence

Answer 12

omission + duty in different provision

s 217 -“everyone who undertakes to do an act is under legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life”

Question 13

R V Browne

Answer 13

General omission Offence

Facts: Drug dealer girlfriend swallows bag of drugs to avoid detection. Becomes acutely unwell. Browne calls taxi to take
her to hospital and says he will take care of her. Dead on arrival to hospital.

Issue: Did his commitment that he would “take care of her” constitute a binding commitment under s 217 (above)?

Analysis: Crim law harsh → nature of commitment must indicate binding intent. He was not found to have an undertaking under 217 as there was not binding intent

Ratio : Need for an undertaking for legal duty to exist.

Question 14

Statutory Interpretation

Answer 14

• Grammar – must be attuned to structure of language in the legislation
• Purpose – qualifying language; what is the intent of the legislation
• Read clause as a whole – assume consistency

Doesn’t matter if fact scenario COULD come within statutory wording, consider whether it SHOULD

• The question is often: What are the ramifications if that interpretation is accepted?

Question 15

DLW (2016) SCC

Answer 15

Q: Bestiality - Elements of the offence - Whether the offence of bestiality under s. 160(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, is a general intent offence which encompasses sexual activity of any kind between a person and an animal with penetration not being an essential element of the offence.

The respondent was convicted of several offences, including the offence of bestiality. He appealed the conviction, arguing that penetration is an element of the offence of bestiality, and that because no penetration occurred in this case, he ought to have been acquitted. The Crown argued that the meaning of bestiality is unambiguous and refers to sexual activity of any kind between a person and an animal. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent of the bestiality count. Bauman C.J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal.

Lower Court Rulings
July 25, 2013
Supreme Court of British Columbia

33494, 2013 BCSC 1327Respondent convicted of bestiality
April 23, 2015
Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver)

CA041569, 2015 BCCA 169Appeal allowed; respondent acquitted of bestiality

Ratio: When assessing the conduct elements, words should be given their ordinary meaning. Courts must not expand the
scope of criminal liablity beyond that established by parliament.

Issue: What does “bestiality” mean? Is penetration required?

Analysis: Parliament should be presumed to have incorporated the meaning that it meant to in the legislation

• courts can help apply the law, but should not define it (leave policy debates to parliament)
• in favour of certainty and fair notice to people

Question 16

R v Kranjc

Answer 16

Ratio: Accused must meet the technical requirements of the definition of the offence in order to be charged

The Anita Krajnc case refers to the case of Toronto resident Anita Krajnc who was charged with criminal mischief for giving water to pigs in a slaughter truck on the way to Fearman’s Pork Inc. slaughterhouse, located in Burlington, Greater Toronto Area.[1]

This incident occurred on June 22, 2015,[1][2] and Krajnc was found not guilty on May 4, 2017.