Actus Reus Flashcards
Beyond a reasonable doubt
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
Substantive Criminal law
Principles that we use to see if someone is guilty
Actus Reus: Physical elements of an offence (conduct)
Mens Rea: guilty mind(fault)
How to convict:
Need to have Statutory interpretation plus the common law.
Prosecution has to prove:
- Voluntariness
- Acts (and omissions)
- Circumstances
- Consequences and Causation
Mens Rea
No guity act without a guilty mind
Forms of Actus Reus
- Act or Omission)(always)
2.Voluntary
Conduct (almost always, only unusual cases its contested)
2.Prescribed Circumstances
Causing Certain consequence
- Causing certain consequences
All connect to physical conduct
Vountariness
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
Automatism
species of involuntariness that is involuntary that involves complex actions that would normally be assumed to be voluntary
(sleep walking)
Negligence Vs Recklessness
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.
Categories of Conduct
= What the crown has to prove
- Voluntariness (Conscious and deliberate decision to act). Must be proven by the Crown.
- Acts & Omissions: There is only a legal duty to act if parliament has made it clear in the offence (two types)
- Circumstances
-anything else the Crown has to prove as part of Actus Reus (eg consent ofen an issue)
Voluntariness
(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
Acts and Omissions
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
Specific omission offence
omission + duty in same provision
eg “everyone who commits an offence who fails, without reasonable exuse to…”
General omission offence
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”
R V Browne
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.
Statutory Interpretation
- 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?
DLW (2016) SCC
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
R v Kranjc
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.
