Canadian Criminal Law Flashcards
Bill-C13
made it illegal to share intimate photos of another person without their consent. It was designed to protect young people from cyberbullying.
Private law
An area of law that governs and protects the interests of individuals and relationships among individuals
defamation
when an individual publishes false and damaging information about another person
Public law
An area of law that governs and regulates matters of collective or public interest
Statutes
written laws
Common Law or Precedent
unwritten laws based on judicial decisions and interpretations of statutes
stare decisis
Precedent
crime
an act or omission that is prohibited by criminal law. In Canada, crime is legally defined in the Criminal Code
regulatory crimes
quasi-criminal laws that refer to offences under regulatory legislation that can be passed by federal, provincial/territorial, or municipal governments.
Indictable offences
more serious offences in the Criminal Code and include a greater range of penalties that are spelled out in the charging section
Summary conviction offences
less serious offences that carry a max penalty of six months imprisonment and/ or a fine of $5000
Hybrid offences
offences where the Crown has the option of proceeding by either summary conviction or indictable offence. Most offences are hybrid
The actus reus
“guilty act” refers to the prohibited act or the commission of prohibited act or failure to act in certain situations
- three elements to the actus reus are conduct, circumstances, and consequences of the crime
- the conduct must be voluntary and prohibited
- circumstances refer to the context in which the conduct Is engaged that make it criminal
Mens rea
“guilty mind” refers to the intent to commit the prohibited act
-The Crown must prove all of the mental elements of the offence to obtain a conviction.
Mental intent takes one of two forms
general intent offences and specific intent offences
General intent offences
Require the crown to prove that you intended to commit the offence in question and not particular set of consequences
Specific intent offences
Require the crown prove that you intended to a specific outcome when you committed the criminal offence
Legal defences are organized into two categories
Excuses defences and Justification defences
Excuses defences
the criminal defendant acknowledged or admits that he or she did in fact commit the criminal act (acteus reus) but argues that there was no intent to commit a crime
Justification defences
the criminal defendant admits to committing the criminal act but argues that he or she was justified in committing the act under the circumstances
Mistake of fact
refers to a excuse defense where an accused individual claims to have committed a criminal act but under the circumstances did not know or believe that they were doing anything illegal (mens rea)
Mistake of Law
officially induced error- refers to an excuse defense where an individual has relied on an interpretation of the law provided by a government or public official whose job is to provide people with that advice
Insanity defence
excuses defense. “wild beast standard” which is valid if the criminal is insane or mentally ill
M’Naghten British standard
the individual must suffer from a serious mental disorder, the mental disorder must impact the individual’s ability to understand what he or she was doing, and the mental disorder must impact the individual’s ability to know their actions are wrong
Irresistible Impulse test
A violation standard of insanity that holds that individuals should not be held legally responsible for behaviours that emerge from mental illness that results in an inability to control their own behaviours
Automatism
A legal excuse that refers to unconscious or involuntarily behaviours. It is a dissociative state which refers to a disconnection between emotions, identity, memories, and thoughts, in court cases this becomes relevant when it is argued that an accused individual’s behaviours were automatic and not under his or her control
Provocation
Section 232 of the criminal code includes a justification defence known as provocation. Provocation refers to a situation where a wrongful act or insult causes the accused individual to completely lose the power of self control
Duress
A justification defence for cases where a threat from another person causes another person to commit a crime that he or she would not have otherwise have committed
compulsion
a form of duress, an accused individual must establish the following to use compulsion as a defence:
1. He or she committed the crime because they honestly believed there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm 2. The threats were made by a person who was physically present when they committed the crime 3. The accused was not a member of a criminal group planning to commit the crime 4. The crime did not include certain offences such as murder or sexual assault
Common law defence of duress
does not require a threat of immediate death or body harm, and does not require the person to be physically present when the crime is committed. However the common law defence of duress will fail if you had the opportunity to escape the situation safely
Necessity
a form of duress, A legal defence that justifies a normally criminal act in those cases where a force of nature or human conduct causes a person to commit a crime that he or she would otherwise not have committed
Necessity can be used as a legal defence if
1. There was an imminent danger
2. you had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action you took
3. There was proportionality between the harm you inflicted and the harm you avoided
Self defence
Justifies the use of force against another person
-section 34 of the criminal code outline the criteria for self defence
If an individual kills another person in self defence, the following criteria must be met
1. There must be an unlawful assault
2. You must be under a reasonable fear of death or body harm
3. You must have reasonably believed that there was no other way to prevent you own death or body harm
