Lesson Plan XII: Self-Defence

Question 1

What is the significance of R v Cinous?

Answer 1

Facts: Accused heard rumors his accomplices wanted to kill him. Shot accomplice. Claimed self-defence.

Importance: updates the Air of Reality test and tells us WHEN defences should be considered (must be evidence on the record). Judge isn’t there to determine the QUALITY of the defence, but to determine that there IS evidence.

Question 2

What is the significance of R v Lavallee?

Answer 2

Facts: Accused was battered woman. Husband said “either you kill me or I’ll kill you”. Accused shot husband twice.

Importance:
- Discusses when expert evidence/testimony should be admitted –> expert evidence on the psychological effect of battering wives would assist the average person in a battered woman case (this evidence is relevant and necessary)
- establishment of the battered-wife defence

Question 3

When is expert testimony/evidence admissible in battered women cases? (R v Lavallee)

Answer 3

1. assist fact-finder in drawing inferences where expert has knowledge/experience beyond that of the lay person
2. avoid stereotypes of battered women that would affect her claim (ie: should have left, enjoy being beaten)
3. expert testimony relating to the ability of a battered woman to perceive danger from her partner can go to whether she reasonably apprehended death/grevious bodily harm on a particular occasion
4. expert testimony explaining why accused remains in battering relationship is relevant for assessing nature/extent of the abuse
5. providing explanation of why battered woman didn’t flee when life in danger will assist jury in assessing reasonableness of her belief that killing was the only way to save her life

Question 4

R v Szczerbaniwicz?

Answer 4

Facts: Accused & wife arguing, wife knocks down framed diploma. Accused pushed wife and injured her to protect property.

Importance: Can’t use defence of property as an excuse for losing your temper. Must act proportionately. Take into account value of property/alternative choices to accused/etc.

Question 5

Dissent in R v Szczerbaniwicz?

Answer 5

• don’t determine unreasonableness by only looking to the consequences
• nothing unreasonable about pushing/pulling someone to protect your property –> would’ve had to show that push/pull was too strong given the circumstances