Criminal Class 3 Interpretation of Criminal Statues Flashcards
What is the modern principle of statutory interpretation?
Words of the legislation must be read in their entire context, and with an ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the act, the object of the act and the intention of parliament.
What do you do when there are two readings of a provision that are equally plausible?
If two readings are possible on the same legislation, look at charter principles as an interpretive principle to aid but again, only used when genuine ambiguity
R. v. Clark 2005 SCC. The word “access” needed to be interpreted.
Explain what the modern principle of statutory interpretation is. What are important things to remember when conducting this mode?
It is now well established 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”
The ordinary meaning can changed based on context.
Court also stated the idea that parliament is deemed to act deliberately. Courts are not to infer, and to assume if something is not in the act it is done purposely.
R. v. Goulis, 1981. Bankruptcy case. Explain the doctrine of Strict Construction. Explain briefly the steps that need to come into play prior to this doctrine.
Doctrine of Strict Construction: If a criminal provision is capable of two interpretations, look at in a way favourable to the accused and adopt this one.
However, this principle does not always require a word that has two accepted meanings to be given the more restrictive meaning.
Where a word used in a statute has two accepted meanings, then either or both meanings may apply.
The court is first required to endeavor to determine the sense in which Parliament used the word from the context in which it appears (i.e., apply the modern principle of interpretation first).
It is only in the case of an ambiguity which still exists after the full context is considered, where it is uncertain in which sense Parliament used the word, that the above rule of statutory construction (doctrine of strict construction) requires the interpretation which is the more favorable to the accused to be adopted.
R. v. Pare, 1987. Raped a child then killed him. Had to figure out the phrase “while committing” meant in the act.
What if parliamentary intent conflicts with favour of accused?
Doctrine of strict construction used but still have to determine if the interpretation is reasonable in comparison to legislation. if parliamentary intent conflicts with interpreting in favour of accused, go with parliamentary intent first.
if it runs contrary to common sense, it is not to be adopted if a reasonable alternative is available.
ALWAYS do modern interpretation before strict construction
R. v. Mac, 2001. Had machines to forge credit cards. Had to determine what the word “adapted” meant. What did they say about the doctrine of strict construction?
Doctrine of Strict construction only used where there is true ambiguity, and does not mean that the most restrictive possible meaning of any word.
IF ambiguity arises, courts should first look to the other official language version to determine whether its meaning is playing and unequivocal.
SUMMARY OF INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUS.
What are the four steps in order?
First– Modern principle of interpretation is to be applied: 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.
If that doesn’t resolve the issue, then:
Second- If one version of the Code raises an ambiguity should look to the other official language version to determine whether its meaning is plain and unequivocal, and if it is that meaning applies.
If there is still ambiguity,
Third Look to resolve ambiguity by considering Charter values (i.e., version that aligns best with Charter values)
If still unclear/ambiguous,
Fourth Apply strict construction rule, the one more favourable to accused
Wilmington v. D.P.P 1935. A husband killed his wife.
Why was it an issue when the judge told the jury “if killing proved, it is presumed to be murder unless accused proves otherwise”
Was not given presumption of innocence. Burden of the prosecution to show guilt of accused. if there is a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has not met its burden.
Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Does the accused have to testify?
Does the accused have to present evidence or prove anything?
This is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty
The accused does not “have to” testify.
The accused does not “have to” present evidence or prove anything in the case.
R. v. Lifchus 1997. Stock broker and had fraud.
How do you explain to a jury what “beyond a reasonable doubt is”?
What do you avoid?
The doubt must be based upon reason, common sense, logically connected to the evidence, it is not certainty.
It lies on the crown, not based on sympathy, but rather on common sense.
You need to avoid:
Saying reasonable doubt is an ordinary expression
inviting jurors to apply to the task before them the same standard of proof that they apply to important, or even the most important, decisions in their own lives;
equating proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to proof “to a moral certainty”;
qualifying the word “doubt” with adjectives other than “reasonable”, such as “serious”,“substantial” or “haunting”, which may mislead the jury; and
instructing jurors that they may convict if they are “sure” that the accused is guilty, before providing them with a proper definition as to the meaning of the words “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
R. v. Starr 2000. Two people were killed. More info on how to explain reasonable doubt.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt is closer to absolute certainty than the balance of probability.
Jury must be instructed that the standard of proof in a criminal trial is higher than the probability standard used in making everyday decisions and in civil trials (“more likely than not”).
There is no universally intelligible illustration of the concept, such as the scales of justice with respect to the balance of probability standard.
Unlike absolute certainty or the balance of probabilities, reasonable doubt is not an easily quantifiable standard. It cannot be measured or described by analogy. It must be explained but it is difficult to explain
R. v. S (J.H.) 2008. Raped his daughter over years. Lack of credibility on the accused.
Does this lack of credibility equate to proof of his guilt?
No. Lack of credibility for the accused does not equate to proof BRD
Where credibility is important, the trial judge must instruct the jury that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to that issue.
What is the W. (D.) analysis three part step for credibility of an accused that you must instruct a jury on?
If creditability is important, instruct the jury that.
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. (Because evidence you do accept raised a doubt or it left you with not knowing who to believe.)
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
“So What” to this class in reference to BRD.
If you are satisfied BRD CONVICT
If there is a RD ACQUIT
R. v. Mullins-Johnson 2007. Guy wrongfully convicted of murder spent 15 years in jail. What type of acquittal is there in Canada?
In Canada there is only one type of acquittal.
Criminal trial is there to prove the BRD standard. If not, the accused is found not guilty. this does not mean they are innocent.
