Mistake of Law, Fact, Parties, Juries

Question 1

Ignorance of Law

Answer 1

Reasons:

1. Would necessitate trials with trials of what accused knew or didn’t know about the applicable law which results in waste of resources and backlog of cases
2. Would produce anomalous results, whereby those who learn about the law would be penalized for knowledge and those who don’t rewarded for ignorance
3. encourages ignorance of the law whereas knowledgeable citizens is a desirable social outcome.
4. Ignorance of the law is blameworthy itself.

Question 2

Exceptions to ignorance.

Answer 2

1. reasonable reliance on SCC authority in matters of final appeal.
2. Regulations for which there is no notional or actual notice.
3. Offences which are drafted to allow a defence based on colour of right.
4. Officially induced error

Question 3

Officially Induced Error

Answer 3

1. Error of law or mixed fact and law was made
2. That the person who committed the act considered the legal consequences of their actions
3. That the advice came from an appropriate official
4. Advice was reasonable
5. Advice was erroneous
6. person relied on the advice in committing the act.

Question 4

Party to a crime

Answer 4

Actus Reus - Mere presence is not enough
Aiding - Doing something to materially assist someone else to commit a crime
Abetting- Doing something to encourage someone to commit a crime
Mens Rea - Intention to aid or encourage crime, knowledge that the primary perpetrator is committing a criminal offence.

Question 5

Common Intention

Answer 5

Actus reus - Participation in a common unlawful purpose, and commision of a crime while carrying out the common unlawful purpose.
Mens Rea - Objective foresight that the commission of the offence was probable consequence of carrying out the common unlawful purpose.

Question 6

Defence for Common Intention

Answer 6

Abandonment of common unlawful purpose. must be timely and unequivocal.
R v Gauthier - 1. there was an intention to abandon or withdraw from the unlawful purpose. 2. timely communication of the abandonment to those who wish to continue. 3. Served unequivocal notice to those. 4. Accused took in manner proportional to his/her participation in the commission of the planned offence, reasonable steps in the circumstances either to neutralize or otherwise cancel out the efforts of his or her participation or to prevent the commission of the offence

Question 7

Counselling Offence

Answer 7

Actus reus - Counselling, advising someone to commit and offence
Mens rea - Either intending the primary perpetrator to commit the offence or subjective awareness of a risk that the PP will commit the offence and counsels the commission of the offence despite the risk.

Question 8

Accessory

Answer 8

Actus reus - Doing anything to assist the primary perpetrator escape justice
Mens rea - Intention to help the PP escape justice
Knowledge or Willful blindness that the PP has committed a criminal offence.

Question 9

Challenge with cause

Answer 9

R v Williams - test for (b) realistic potential for partiality. presumed impartial. burden on the one challenging must show evidence or if it is widely accepted as true(racial bias) judge may take judicial notice of the concern and allow the challenge. Ultimately decided by 2 juror or 2 people appointed by the court for that purpose.

Question 10

Jury deliberations

Answer 10

R v Pan - ensure jury deliberate on the actual merits of the case, free of any extrinsic evidence and to secure an environment where jury can candidly discuss the evidence and the case.
charter s. 7 makes integrity of this process a POFJ

Question 11

sequester

Answer 11

Change venue within same province due to community bias.