Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Code > Cases to know > Flashcards

Cases to know Flashcards

1
Q

what is the case associated with “the driver who goes too far”

A

R. v. Brooks 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

describe the overall situation of R. v. Brooks 1988

A
  • Motorhome was passed by jeep
  • motorhome turned high beams back on once they thought jeep was far enough in front
  • jeep stopped
  • motorhome went to other lane to pass it
  • jeep sped up to prevent it from returning to lane
  • jeep stopped in front of motor home
  • accused came to drivers door, opened it, pulled driver out of the vehicle
  • both were hit by a third vehicle
  • injuries to both, more severe on motorhome driver
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what was the accused charged and convicted with in R.v. Brooks

A

assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what was R.v. Brook’s defence

A
  • no evidence connecting the assault of pulling motorhome guy from motorhome and his injuries
  • conflicting evidence as to where the two men got run down
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is the result of the R.v. Brook appeal

A
  • appeal dismissed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

describe the overall situation of R.v. Briscoe

A
  • C, a 13yo girl and her friend were lured into a car on the false promise of a party
  • B drove the car to golf course
  • L had said he wanted to kill someone, and it was well received
  • B handed L the pliers per L’s request
  • B was present when C was hit by a wrench
  • B held onto C and told her to be quiet/ shut up
  • B watched C get raped and murdered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what was B charged with in R. v. Briscoe

A
  • kidnapping
  • aggravated assault
  • first degree murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what was B convicted of in R. v. Briscoe

A

he was aquitted, as the mens rea couldn’t be proven

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

why was a new trial ordered for R.v. Briscoe

A

the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider wilful blindness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what main principal is covered in R.v. Briscoe

A

aiding/ abetting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what was the result of the appeal against tj for R. v. Briscoe

A
  • appeal dismissed
  • new trial ordered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is the general story in R.v. Curran 1977

A
  • Defoe decided to rob Armand
  • During the robbery he thre Armand down a fight of stairs, gouged his eyes out and choked him. Armand died sometime during the course of the attack
  • Curran told Defoe “a blind man can still talk” and defoe gauged his eyes out
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what caused the appeal in R.v. Curran

A
  • evidence given to the jury was not properly admissible in evidence
  • he was convicted but it is unknown on what grounds the jury was led to that decision
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the result of the appeal in R.v. Curran

A

new trial ordered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what is the concept introduced in Libman v. R.

A
  • to make an offence subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts requires that a significant portion of the activities constituting the offence take place in canada
  • must be real and substantial link between the offence and this country
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what section of the criminal code is Libman v. R. relevant to

A

Offences outside Canada

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What section of the CC is R. v. Clemente relevant to

A

Uttering Threats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the case law associated with R. v. Clemente

A
  • w/o explanation
  • intent inferred by words
  • context
  • target
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what section of the criminal code is R. v. Pham related to

A

possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what is the case law associated with R. v. Pham

A
  • sufficient knowledge and control over the drugs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what is the general situation in R. v. Pham

A
  • accused trafficked cocaine out of shared apartment in the past
  • police used warrant after seeing drug users enter and exit building regularly (and sliding money under door)
  • PO found cocaine 32 hours after accused had left
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what was the end result of R. v. Pham

A
  • Pham convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking
  • appeal resulted in verdict of acquittal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

explain “shall be deemed”

A
  • R. v. Pham
  • where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in custody and possession of each and all of them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what does Young v. R. tell use

A

mere omission to aid in capture is not an offence of Accessory after the fact
- if you don’t help them capture someone, you are not an accessory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

describe the overall situation of R. v. Gauthier

A
  • G charged with being a party with her spouse to the murder of their 3 children
  • G planned it as a murder-suicide pact and supplied murder weapon
  • did not act to prevent spouse form poisoning them
  • she claims she was in a dissociative state and did not have the specific intent needed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what was Gauthier’s defence in R. v. Gauthier

A

abandonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what was the result of the appeal in R. v. Gauthier and why

A
  • appeal approved, new trial ordered
  • tj prevented the info regarding the defence from being presented to the Jury
  • appeal judge suspects it might have raised a reasonable doubt so new trial ordered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What defence was used in R. v. Zarinchang

A

abuse of process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

describe the overall situation in R. v. Zarinchang

A
  • accused was charged with several offences
  • 24 day delay in hearing of his bail application, bail was eventually denied
  • accused sought a stay of proceedings on the fact that his charter rights were violated
  • TJ allowed and ordered crown to pay 11600 $
  • crown appealed and new trial was ordered
30
Q

what is a stay of proceedings

A

to stop or put a hold on a legal proceeding

31
Q

describe the overall situation of Primeau c. R.

A
  • accused told his son not to lend money to his brother/uncle (an alcoholic)
  • brother heard this and threatened to shoot him and they got into a fight
  • accused shot his brother, killing him
  • claimed he didn’t mean to shoot him, just scare him
32
Q

what common law defence is associated with Primeau v. R.

A

accident

33
Q

what case supports the common law defence of accident

A

Primeau v. R.

34
Q

what is the end result of Primeau v. R.

A
  • appeal is allowed, new trial ordered
  • there is an air of reality to his defence
  • judge fucked up a lot basically (didn’t stop prosecution from leading the jury)
35
Q

what case law does R. v. Allen support

A

Alibi (common law defence)

36
Q

describe the overall situation of R. v. Allen

A
  • man was drinking at a golf tournament
  • messaged a friend planning to meet up and smoke, minutes afterwards his car was seen leaving
  • car crashed into pole
  • accused reported his car stolen and filed for insurance money
  • he claims he was still at the club at the time of the accident
37
Q

what was the result of the appeal in R. v. Allen and why

A
  • appeal allowed, new trial ordered
  • there is a “whisker” of an air of reality that the car was premeditatedly stolen
38
Q

what case law does R. v. Ahmad support

A

entrapment

39
Q

describe the overall situation of R. v. Ahmad

A
  • PO received a tip that a phone number was associated with drug dealers
  • PO called and asked for drugs and were offered them
  • they were arrested and charged
  • both claimed they had been entraped, one (w) succeeded and the other (a) didn’t
  • appeal court said neither of them had been entraped
40
Q

why was W entraped and A wasn’t according to TJ

A

A used slang on the phone that was involved in drug subculture, insinuating what the phone number was for. W did not make any hints

41
Q

what was the SCC decision for R.v. Ahmad

A
  • neither A nor W were entrapped
  • appeal dismissed
42
Q

what case law is R. v. Brown 2022 associated with

A

automatism

43
Q

describe the overall situation in R.v. Brown

A
  • man consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms
  • lost grasp on reality, was in a psychotic state
  • broke into a house and attacked the occupant
  • broke into a second house
44
Q

what was the final result to R.v. Brown

A
  • appeal allowed
  • acquittal restored
45
Q

what does R. v. Daley prove

A

D must prove extent of intoxication based on balance of probabillities

46
Q

what case law does R. v. Ruzic support

A

compulsion by threats

47
Q

describe the overall situation od R. v. Ruzic

A
  • accused imported 2kg of heroin into canada
  • claimed a man threatened to harm her mother if she didn’t
  • didn’t contact police because she believed they were corrupt in Belgrade and wouldn’t help her
48
Q

what was the final result of R. v. Ruzic

A
  • defence succeded, she was aquitted
  • crown appealed but court of appeal dismissed it
  • appealed again to SCC and it was dismissed again
49
Q

what case law does R. v. tatton support

A

proving the mens rea

50
Q

describe the overall situation of R. v. Tatton

A
  • T caused fire that destroyed his x gfs house
  • placed a pan w oil on stove, set the burner to high, and left
  • when he came back the house was on fire
  • T claimed the fire was an accident and since it was a specific intent crime he relied on self-induced intoxication as a defence
51
Q

what is the final result of R. v. Tatton

A
  • T was aquitted
  • court of appeal upheld the acquittal
  • appeal was allowed at SCC level, new trial ordered
  • (doesn’t agree that self-induced intoxication is a defence here)
52
Q

Describe the decision for R v SSM and why

A
  • new trial ordered
  • SSM did not give evidence for due diligence, and the tj didn’t give availability for the defence
53
Q

describe the overall situation for R v SSM

A
  • city contracted a company to remove their waste/ garbage
  • that company picked a location right by a river
  • all the waste ended up in the river
54
Q

what case law is R v SSm related to

A

due diligence

55
Q

what case law does Perka v The Queen relate to

A

necessity

56
Q

what does Perka v the queen decide

A
  • people cannot be held to the strict obedience of law under emergency circumstances where normal human instincts impel disobedience
57
Q

give an example of necessity

A
  • importing cannabis to alaska
  • had a problem with the boat and had to dock in Canada
  • illegal importation of cannabis to Canada (unintentional)
58
Q

what case law is associated with R v Barnes

A

entrapment

59
Q

describe the overall situation for R v Barnes

A
  • PO approached a scruffy looking man asking to buy weed
  • man declined multiple times but PO persisted
  • eventually man sold him weed resin, and was arrested
60
Q

what was the final result for R v Barnes

A
  • Barnes appealed
  • appeal allowed, stay of proceedings restored
  • PO wasn’t acting on bona fide
60
Q

what case law was associated with R v Mathisen

A
  • primarily accident
  • also tried self defence and necessity
61
Q

describe the overall situation of R v Mathisen

A
  • accused killed his wife by blunt force to head and strangulation
  • claimed that he didn’t mean to kill her
  • she cheated on him and was going to leave him and also wanted him dead?
62
Q

what was the final result of R v Mathisen

A
  • appeal allowed, new trial ordered
  • TJ failed to leave w the jury of accident for actus reus
63
Q

what case law is R v Chapin associated with

A

due diligence

64
Q

describe the overall situation for R v Chapin

A
  • Chapin went hunting for ducks with a friend
  • happened to be within 1/4 mile of bait left for migratory birds which is illegal according to Migratory Birds Regulations
  • Chapin claimed to not know that the bait was there
65
Q

describe the appeals related to R v Chapin

A
  • Chapin used mistake of fact originally
  • Crown appealed because its an Absolute liability offence because there is no defence for it (just by doing the crime you are guilty)
  • Crown succeeded
  • Chapin appealed again and SCC aquitted her
66
Q

what case law is associated with R v Latimer

A

necessity

67
Q

describe the overall situation for R v Latimer

A
  • dad killed his 12 year old daughter who had severe cerebral palsy, mental capacity of a 4 month old
  • doctors wanted to do another surgery on her, he thought it was mutilation, so he killed her with carbon monoxide
68
Q

describe the end result of R v Latimer

A
  • convicted at trial court for 2nd degree murder
    appealed due to jury selection concerns
  • convicted of 2nd degree again
69
Q

describe the overall situation for R v Shanks

A
  • Shanks went to Spurell’s house to threaten his cat and then him
  • planned to fight Spurell despite his family telling him he had health issues
  • they fought, and Spurell died later that night from a heart attack
70
Q

describe the end result for R v Shanks

A
  • convicted of manslaughter
    appeal
  • lessened the sentence, but upheld the conviction
71
Q
A

Criminal Code (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions