Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Crim - Fall - Sherrin - 2013 > crim-rough.1 > Flashcards

crim-rough.1 Flashcards

1
Q

operationalized codefid criminal law - cannot charge or detain someone if the law is not in the criminal code; not under common law

A

Frey?v .?Fedoruk (peeping tom case) (1950) p20

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

common law defences are allowed; even those outside the criminal code in accordance with section 7 of the charter

A

Amato?v .?The?Queen (1982) p18

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

we can use common law to interpret elements of a common law defence such as consent… but there is concurrent dissent

A

R .?v .?Jobidon (1991) p22

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

R .?v .?Jobidon

A

manslaughter case in which accused tries to use consent asa defence but court looks to common law to negate his defence; Gauthier writes majority; Sopinka belives it is beyond cour’ts authority (1991) p22

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

upholds the criminality of contempt of court and leaves open limited input of common law into criminal law

A

United Nurses of Alberta v. A.G. Alberta (1992) p25

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

affirmed?the?existence?of?a?void?for?vagueness?doctrine (read into section 7 of charter) but in most casese vagueness defence fails

A

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (1992) p26

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

standardless?sweep’ first used

A

Prostitution reference (1990) p26

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

laws should not be overboard (overbreadth), there is dissent regarding if one must be notified of restrictions or whether ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ doctricne should be upheld

A

R .?v .?Heywood (1994) p28

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

R .?v .?Heywood

A

Cory Majority; Gaunthier dissent; regarding restricitons on liberty of repeated sexual offender (1994) p28

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

the term ‘reasonable’ is not vague; refutes the fact thatthe courts apply it inconsistently as proof that it is vague; outlines corporeal punishment of children

A

Canadian?Foundation?for?Children,?Youth?and?the?Law?v .?Canada? (2004) p29

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

in favour of contextual meaning of ‘while committing’ with dissent; doctrine of strict construction is weakened

A

R .?v .?Pare (1987) p37

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R .?v .?Pare

A

Man kills after sexual assualt; agues he did not kill ‘while committing’ - court convicts using contextualist interpretation (1987) p37

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

confirms the ability to interpret outside strict literal interpretation; regarding murder of police officer

A

R. v. Prevost (1988) p42

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Driedger?s?modern?approach

A

the?words?of?an?Act?are?to?be?read?in?their?entire?context?and?in?their?grammatical?and?ordinary?sense?harmoniously?with?the?scheme?of?the?Act,?the?object?of?the?Act,?and?the?intention?of?Parliament. (1983) p42

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

outlines the standards for ambiguity, which change depending on the area of law, criminal and charter issues being the narrowest

A

Bell Ex pressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, et al. (2002) p43

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

there can be no crime or punishment unless it is in accordance with law that is certain, unambiguous and not retroactive’ Palmer

A

Prostitution reference (1990) p27

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

Condemning people for conduct that they could not have reasonably known was criminal is Kafkaesque and anathema to our notions of justice’

A

R v Mabior (2012) p???

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

not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations’

A

Charter section 11 (1982) px

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Doctrine of strict construction: if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is the more favourable to the accused must be adopted

A

R v . Goulis (1981) px

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

defendant is asked to proove the killing of his wife was not murder which was a n unjust onus… conviction was appealed and quashed

A

Woolmington?v .?D .P .P (1935) p279

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

to invoke section 1 to trump a charter right such as a reverse onus for drug trafficking a two step test must be passed

A

R .?v .?Oakes ? 1) pressing and substantial concern 2) rationally connected; 3) minimal impariment; 4) proportional means (1986) p284

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Oakes

A

dug trafficking charge fails on rationa connection test as the trafficking assumption was overinclusive, including those who possessed small amounts of drugs (1986) p284

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

regarding section 11d (presumption of innocence) -‘the?distinction?between?elements?of?the?offence’… only resonable doubt matters

A

R v Whyte (1988) p289

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Anti-hate laws are a noble objective and proving truth is a reasonable restraint

A

R .?v .?Keegstra - McLaughclin dissents, no rational connection, what if true but cannot be proved? What clear and (1990) p295

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

‘reasonable?doubt’ is NOT?nececarily an ‘ordinary,?natural?every?day?sense’

A

R .?v .?Lifchus (1997) px

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

clarifies when section 11d is violated, a truth test does not rectify the violation; in this case s1 living with prostitutes can be inferred to live with prostitutes

A

R. v. Downey (1992) p291

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

Reasonable doubt cannot be said to have ‘no special connotations’ by a judge to a jury

A

R .?v .?Starr (2000) p294

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

reflex action means there was no mens rea - hit trespasser with a phone reflexivley

A

R v Wolfe (1975) ponline

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

contemporaneity; actus reus and mens rea should be rationally connected in assault - this may often mean silmutaneous or near to it

A

Fagan?v .?Commissioner?of?Metropolitan?Police - drove car on policeman’s foot (1969) p304

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

There is a duty to take measures to prevent dangers that are caused by oneself; adoption; recklessness aplies if the mens rea allows for recklessness

A

R .?v .?Miller - man fell aspleep on a matress with a cgarett buring, started a fire, did not hing (1982) p305

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

deportation to country one came from is no excuse for violating term of stay ? involuntarieness failed ? this case is now held in disrepute

A

R .?v .?Larsonneur (1933) p311

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

even a parking ticket must have mens rea; absoloute prohibiitons must be explicit

A

Kilbride?v .?Lake (1962) p314

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

criminals must have voluntarieness; duress cannot be restricted as a defence - drug smuggling under duress

A

R .?v .?Ruzic (2001) p316

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

the standards of criminal law must be different and higher than civil law thus common law negligence is not sufficient for a criminal act

A

R .?v .?Browne (1997) p320

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

refrain from negligent harm that can foreseeably caused injury to the public; duty was found on criminal negligence and nuisance (180 and 219) despite no explict duty found in code

A

R .?v .?Thornton (1991) p323

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Fagan?v .?Commissioner?of?Metropolitan?Police

A

contemporaneity; victim drives on police officer’s foot, unclear of intention; victim stays on police officer’s foot (1969) p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

R .?v .?Miller

A

Contemporaneity is used as defence, mens rea came after the fact; refuted; lower court uses theory of adoption; house of Lords uses ‘duty to act’, a new actus reus, to convict when accused starts a fire accidentally, walks away from a fire ? dissent from Lamer (1982) p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

R .?v .?Larsonneur

A

Voluntariness ? woman is deported from Ireland to UK (where she came from) and charged with violating immigration laws ? involuntariness failed as defence (1933) p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

R .?v .?Browne

A

two druggies, one swallows and dies, they try to convict other druggie of not upholding a duty to bring other druggie to hospital fast enough (1997) p320

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

R .?v .?Thornton

A

man who donates HIV infected blood is convicted under 180, nusinace with harm to the public; SCC ends up getting him on 216 (medical negligence) (1991) p323

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

courts ignore contemporaneity when man violates an order to be in by 12 IN CANADA and goes to USA

A

R v Copland () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

by strict contemporaneity no murder occured; however Supreme court convicts, accused that he had mens rea, and the morally blameworthy actions

A

R v Cooper (1993) p307

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

not asking about consent when you have good reason to believe that consent is illegitimate is wilful blindness

A

R .?v .?Sansregret (1985) p447

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

R .?v .?Sansregret

A

McIntyre distinguishes wilful blindness from recklessness; not enquiring when one knows one should is wilful blindness in the case of sexual assault (1985) p447

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Wilful blindness must result from a ‘strong well founded suspicion’; a component for knowledge when knowledge is part of mens rea

A

R v Briscoe (2010) p449

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

R v Briscoe

A

man helping others in murder claims wilful blindness is merely advanced recklessness and is insufficient to constitute mens rea for murder (2010) p449

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Wilful blindness is refusing to confirm a strong probability; almost knowledge; a very high standard; it is not if a man ‘should have’ been suspeicious but if he ‘was’ suspicious

A

R v Malfara (2006) pattached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

R v Malfara

A

man takes $50 to deliver clothing to aprisoneer and is found not wilfully blind that there could be something quite illegal in the package (2006) pattached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Sault Ste Marie has blurred the distinction between regulatory and criminal

A

Stucky () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Beaver?v .?The?Queen

A

possession of drugs must be held to subective mens rea (1957) p378

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

possesion must be held to higher mens rea

A

Beaver?v .?The?Queen (1957) p378

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

mens rea of ‘promotion of hatred’ has two elements

A

Buzzanga () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

an example of an intellectually incorrect case made by sentimental reasons

A

Muirhead ? judge does not convict a father who was investigating his son’s possible child abuse and absolved of abduction (2008) p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

case where belief that the accused was committing the crime of laundering illicit funds but in fact, he was not because the money was planted by the police

A

United States v Dynar (1997) p579

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Knowledge does not refer to illegality or morality

A

Theroux () pMR slide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

This case states that any risk at all is sufficient for recklessness, Criminal code says it is ‘elevated risk’

A

Sansregret () pMR slide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Where an offence requires knowledge, recklessness will not suffice (although wilful blindness will)

A

Sandhu () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

A reckless threat of bodily harm will not be interpreted as having sufficient mens rea

A

Noble () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

in aiding, there may not necessarily be a causal connection if it had the affect of assisting the principal

A

R v Duley () p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

recklessness does not satisfy 21b; knowledge that one is assisting a type crime and the general circumstances of how it occurs

A

R v Roach (2004) ponline

61
Q

R v Roach

A

accused helps set up a telecom frau business but is not conviceted of aiding under 21b because judge dis not give intrcution regarding his koledge of the type of crime that occurred (2004) ponline

62
Q

an example of a police officer abetting

A

R v Nixon () p

63
Q

R v Nixon

A

officer with a duty to protect inmates in jail, officer does not stop another police officer from committing assault () p

64
Q

owner of car allows chauffeur to drive drunk and is convicted of abetting

A

R v Halmo () p

65
Q

trial judge makes an error by instructing jury to make an inference about abetting when it was unclear how her abetting supported the acts

A

R .?v .?Palombi (2007) p550

66
Q

R .?v .?Palombi

A

cannot make inference of wife of husband who abuses children (2007) p550

67
Q

R .?v .?Thatcher

A

man either murdered, or hired someone to murder, his wife; judge does not maek jury decide which; appeal fails; conviction upheld (1987) p526

68
Q

a jury need not come to an agreement on factual evidence regarding principal or abbetor

A

R .?v .?Thatcher (1987) p526

69
Q

L’heureaux-Dube and Cory have a debate about the role of aeting between a purchaser of drugs and a trafficekr,; where does a middle man lie?

A

R .?v .?Greyeyes (1997) p531

70
Q

R .?v .?Greyeyes

A

majority found that while abbeting purchase of drugs does not necessarily abet trafficking, it did in this case due to knoledge, aggency (1997) p531

71
Q

Dickson says - Pressence is not abbetting, requires prior knoledge or more to substantiate some support of the act

A

Dunlop?and?Sylvester?v .?The?Queen (1979) p537

72
Q

Dunlop?and?Sylvester?v .?The?Queen

A

mortorcycle gang members are present during a gang rape but found not to be abbetting (1979) p537

73
Q

R .?v .?Jackson

A

In?some?circumstances?the?presence?of?an?accused?will,?in?itself,?be?held?to?have?encouraged?the?commission?of?the?offence (2007) p543

74
Q

Man is present at marajuan grow-up and convicted

A

R .?v .?Jackson (2007) p543

75
Q

purpose is synonomous of intent’ in aiding a crime; recklessness will not suffice

A

R v Roach (2004) ponline

76
Q

R v Roach

A

man was convicted of aiding fraud by being reckless but overrulled by appellate court because recklessness does not sufice (2004) ponline

77
Q

Cory J acquits because accused did not have common intention evidenced by not encourage killing althought he abbetted theft resulting in sexual assault; Wilson J disagrees beause accused knew bodily harm existed

A

R .?v .?Kirkness (1990) p553

78
Q

R .?v .?Kirkness

A

accused was accomplice in armed robbery, partner commits sexual assault and murder but accused asked him not to kill her; accused acquited with dissent (1990) p553

79
Q

common intention in murder requires subjective mens rea; ‘or ought to have known’ does not hold weight for murder; but will for other crimes

A

R .?v .?Logan (1990) p561

80
Q

R .?v .?Logan

A

men in a robbery, one man shoots; partners are not convicted of attempt of murder because they have subjective mens rea (1990) p561

81
Q

McLAughclin ‘a?conviction?for?manslaughter?under?s.?21(2)?does?not?require?foreseeability?of?death,?but?only?foreseeability?of?harm,?which?in?fact?results?in?death’

A

R. v. Jackson 1993 (1993) p563

82
Q

an example of counselling; counselling is instrumental in the principal deciding to commit the crime

A

R .?v .?O?Brien (2007) p564

83
Q

R .?v .?Duong

A

friend helps someone being searched for murder, is convicted of assessory, fails to make argument of no knowledge, he was willfully blind by not making inquiry (1998) p566

84
Q

R. v. Jackson 1993

A

McLAughclin ‘a?conviction?for?manslaughter?under?s.?21(2)?does?not?require?foreseeability?of?death,?but?only?foreseeability?of?harm,?which?in?fact?results?in?death’ (1993) p563

85
Q

5 elements of 21(2)

A

1) with another 2) unlawful plan 3) another crime 4) probable consequence (based on the circumstances as he perceived them) 5) known to be probable (x) px

86
Q

probable consequence in respect to 21(2) must relate to knowledge of the accused unded the circumstances

A

r v maiher and clark (1968) ponline

87
Q

r v maiher and clark

A

accused did not know principal had a knife; accused was acquitted of weapons charge (1968) ponline

88
Q

R v Gauthier; 4 elements to maintain abandonement defence

A

1) intent; 2) communication; 3) unequivocal; 4) proortional to contribution (2013) ponline

89
Q

defence of abandonment fails for accomplice in murder suidide pact

A

R v Gauthier; 4 elements to maintain abandonement defence; 1) intent; 2) communication; 3) unequivocal; 4) proortional to contribution (2013) ponline

90
Q

attempts involve more than; contemplation; deciding; planning; preparing; look at time, location and remaining acts - The?actus reus?must?be?more?than?mere?preparation?to?commit?a?crime

A

R v Cline (1956) p571

91
Q

R v Cline

A

man with sunglasses asks boy to hlp him baggage; extrsic evidence of overt steps planning and past behaviour patterns displayed intent (1956) p571

92
Q

an intervening act must not be ovewheliming or forseeable; it must be caussally ‘connected in time, place, circumstance, nature and effect’.

A

R v Maybin (2012) ponline

93
Q

R v Maybin

A

three appeallants all assault and kill a man; intervening acts are examined; all get assault; none get manslaughter (2012) ponline

94
Q

Driving which, objectively viewed, is simply dangerous, will not on its own support the inference that the accused departed markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances’

A

R v Roy (2012) ponline

95
Q

R v Roy

A

lenient on a driver who while they aknowledged did something objectivleydangerous did not sufficeintly show moral blameworthieness in a departure from the dtandard of care (2012) ponline

96
Q

AR of conspriacy requires; 2 people with knowledge of a plan, agreeing to go forward with the plan (meeting of minds)

A

R v Alexander and Blake (2005) ponline

97
Q

R v Alexander and Blake

A

teo men try to pimp out woman and blackmail but there is insufficient meeting of minds between the two of them to get them caught on conspiracy (2005) ponline

98
Q

an accessory can be indicted even if no principal has been indicted

A

R v Camponi (1993) ponline

99
Q

R v Camponi

A

accued is indicted as an accessory for murder even though the principal had not yet been convicted (1993) ponline

100
Q

entrapment (and other common law defences) can be used unde s8(3)

A

Amato?v .?The?Queen (1982) p18

101
Q

a case where systematic racism was found that contributed the the indictment of an aboriginal man

A

R v Marshall (1972) p200

102
Q

6-3 SCC decision that a judge did not continute to bias by saying that a police officers had been known to conducti n rascist acitivites; ‘judges?can?never?be?neutral,?in?the?sense?of?purely?objective,?they?can?and?must?strive?for?impartiality’ - majority

A

R v S (RD) (1997) p226

103
Q

Public Inquiry of Aboriginal Justice

A

discusses overincarceration, sentencing and guilty pleas of aboriginals (1991) p230

104
Q

?this?history?[of wrongful convictions] weighs?powerfully?in?the?balance?against?extradition?without?assurances [against the deat penalty].

A

United?States?of?America?v .?Burns?and?Rafay (2001) p238

105
Q

the duty of the crown is to fully disclose evidence to get at the truth, not to win a conviction

A

Boucher?v .?The?Queen (1954) p248

106
Q

A crown has a duty to disclose evidence to the defence, even (or sespecially) if it is in the accused’s interest

A

R .?v .?Stinchcombe (1991) p252

107
Q

Defence cannot commit pugury but mut let accused disclose the evidence the acused wishes to disclose, even if contradictory

A

Law?Society?of?Upper?Canada,??Defending?a?Criminal?Case? (1969) p257

108
Q

normative and utilitarian intersts must be regarded in sentencing, great discretion for trial judge, plaintiffs age should be taken into account

A

R .?v .?M .?(C .A .) (1996) p980

109
Q

conditional sentence must fit with; denuciation, segregation, deterence and rehabilitation; summary offence, less than 2 years, not threaten community,

A

R .?v .?Proulx - a dangeorus driving case (2000) p994

110
Q

man realizes he has HIV but continues having unproted sex; acquitted under contemporanety

A

R v Williams (2003) p309

111
Q

a duty of diclosure in the context of HIV carrier is found althugh McLauchlin dissents

A

R v Currier (1998) p331

112
Q

An example of lack of factual causation when accused filled out false statemtns for credit card but credit issuer did not rely upon false info

A

R v Winnig (1973) p337

113
Q

in criminal law, accused must take victims as they find them; forseeability of bodily harm, not death is necessary for manslaughter; contrinution must be more than trivial (de minimis) low threshold estbablished for causation - challenged later

A

Smithers?v .?The?Queen (1978) p339

114
Q

Challenges diminimus test for manslaughter - both physical causation and fault must be found’ diminmis test is not too vauge or too remote; multiple causes can contibute to manslaughter such as a kick and a choke

A

R .?v .?Cribbin (1994) p344

115
Q

when?the?death?is?caused?by?that?person’ is construed to mean that there is an extra high standard of causation for parites to first degree murder

A

R .?v .?Harbottle (1993) p358

116
Q

R .?v .?Harbottle

A

man holds feet down while friend stangles, a differnet level of causation is found for first=degree murder (1993) p358

117
Q

discuss legal caussation for homocide; significant as a opposed to ‘not insignificant’ which is lower; dissent that does not want to change standard for second degree to ‘significant’

A

R v Nette (2001) p363

118
Q

an expansive interpretation of attempt where an atempt made of procuring sex; judge found there were no other steps to complete once the money was offered

A

R v Deustch (1986) p573

119
Q

two men attempt to rob a frnchise; it was closed; they are charged with attempt

A

R v Sorell () p

120
Q

legal and factual impossiblity does not absolve an accused from ‘attempt’ because they are equally morally blameworthy; obiter - impossibllity can work when the attempt was not a crime even though the accused believes it was a crime

A

R v Dynar () p

121
Q

meetings, setting out terms and planning a crime makes an offence of attempt, even if the plans do not come to completion

A

R v Root (2008) p

122
Q

exam 2011 attempt issues

A

is victim showing up an intervening cause? Is the evidence of poorly executed beating indicating intent? Is getting to the door sufficient planning in combination with his stated itnent? (x) ponline

123
Q

recklessness is a high standard for incitment; substantial and unjustifiable; must be aware of substantial risk

A

R v Hamilton (2005) p588

124
Q

R v Hamilton

A

man is acquitted of three counts but convicted for counselling fraud; sending files named ‘bombs’ about buiding bombs but he claims to have never read the filed; dissent cites Keegstra; c (2005) p588

125
Q

conspiracy must agree on crime but not on how to carry out the crime

A

R v Controni () p

126
Q

conspiracy - no requirement that a member have contact with more than one member; no need to know identity

A

R v Niemi; R v Longworth () p

127
Q

not a crime, emphasizes the differenes between lobsters and drugs? a regulatory offence, lower mens rea

A

R .?v .?Pierce?Fisheries?Ltd (1971) p384

128
Q

for strict liability offences, a deffendent need not have mensrea but must prove it took every precaution

A

R .?v .?City?of?Sault?Ste .?Marie (1978) p388

129
Q

you cannot be imprisoned for a regualtory offence

A

Reference?re?Section?94(2)?of?the?B .C .?Motor?Vehicle?Act (1985) p395

130
Q

driving without a licence can be an absoloute liabitly offence, 5-4 decision

A

R v Pontes (1995) p400

131
Q

abosoloute liability is relative to stigma, less important for a coproration

A

R .?v .?1260448?Ontario?Inc .?(c .o .b .?William?Cameron?Trucking);??R Transpot Robert (1973) Ltd. (2003) p401

132
Q

Contentious 5-4 decision where burden of proof was placed on advertisers to prove that they did everything they could to prevent false advertising

A

R .?v .?Wholesale?Travel?Group?Inc (1991) p405

133
Q

Judge adds an additional charge which he did not clarify to jury where the burden of proof lay; Cory found this less than ideal but not fatal to the decision

A

D.W. v. The Queen (1991) ponline

134
Q

British citizen, worked for Nazis, but claimed his prupose was to protet family and his claims to duress must be taken seriously

A

R .?v .?Steane (1947) p429

135
Q

duress is an excuse for some crimes; you cannot use duress if you have the ability to escape from the crime

A

R .?v .?Hibbert (1995) p432

136
Q

if there was willful promotion of hatred, there must also be purposful intent

A

R .?v .?Buzzanga?and?Durocher (1979) p436

137
Q

knowledge is important for the mens rea of fraud

A

R .?v .?Theroux (1993) p443

138
Q

mens rea for manslaughter is objective; objectivity is not made in a vacum - there is dissent

A

R .?v .?Tutton?and?Tutton (1989) p450

139
Q

R .?v .?Tutton?and?Tutton

A

family believe in faith healing; charged with manslaughter; defence uses Sansregret to try to absolve guilt because they are reckless but lack subjective state (1989) p450

140
Q

capacity is a requirement for objective test of criminal culpability; McLauchlin repudates concurring opinions that try to bring in other factors such as human frilities into consideration

A

R .?v .?Creighton (1993) p457

141
Q

momentary lapse of judegment indicates no marked deaprture from the standard of care; limit acteus reus for dangerous driving cuasing death, weakening objective test

A

R .?v .?Beatty (2008) p471

142
Q

knowledge that viewed objectivley, accused’s acts would contsitute war crimes

A

R .?v .?Finta (1994) p485

143
Q

21b and 21c fro aiding and abbetting are held to subjective mens rea

A

R .?v .?Helsdon (2007) p545

144
Q

R .?v .?Helsdon

A

reporter violates newspaper ban and gives information to newspaper (2007) p545

145
Q

appealant provided information and encouragement to rob but did not seell drugs later; court found his seeming lack of motive (inability to sell) irrelevant; knowledge and willful blindess are

A

R .?v .?O?Brien (2007) p564

146
Q

like murder, attempt of murder requires elevated mens rea of a specific intent to kill

A

R v Anico (1984) p574

147
Q

a crime that would have resulted in murder is attempt of murder but L’Herueux-Dube dissents keeping it stricktly to the same mens rea of murder that cannot be changed because of its association with another crime

A

R .?v .?Logan (1990) p561

148
Q

although conspiracy involves more than one person and that person cannot be a police officer; if the police oficer is just an intermediary, conviciton is still possible

A

United?States?v .?Dynar (1997) p595

149
Q

cannot attempt to conspire theft because the parties had not agreed or committed but merely discussed; hoping to commit crime is insufficient

A

R .?v .?Dery (2006) p600

Crim - Fall - Sherrin - 2013 (1 decks)

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