Unit 3 - Criminal Law Pt. 2 Flashcards
Defences (main 3)
- Deny committing the act; disputing actus reus
- Argue they lacked intent; disputing mens rea
- Attempt to justify why they committed the act
Alibi
Arguing that the accused wasn’t at the scene of the crime when it took place = couldn’t have committed the crime
Alibi - STRENGTHS
Strengths
- To be considered strong, all 3 must exist:
- Statement by the accused claiming they weren’t present at the crime scene at the time of crime
- An explanation of where they were
- Names of any witnesses who can confirm the alibi
- A full + reliable alibi = strongest defence = likely will lead to an acquittal
Alibi - WEAKNESSES
- Alibis generally become weak when there are no witnesses to verify the claims made by the accused
- If 1 or more of 3 components are missing, it becomes easier for the Crown to raise doubts about the alibi’s credibility
Automatism
An involuntary action by a person who cannot control their actions + who is in a state of impaired consciousness.
Non-Insane Automatism
- “temporary insanity”
- committed the crime while in a temp. state of imapired consioness
- a result of physical blow, sleepwalking, consuming drugs, a stroke, severe psychological trauma
Questions During a Fitness Test
- Does the accused understand the nature of the proceedings? Does the accused understand that they are on trial?
- Does the accused understand the possible consequences of a trial?
- Is the accused able to communicate w/ their lawyers?
Intoxication
- Accused demonstrates they didn’t have a guilty mind at the time of crime (drugs/alcohol)
- May be used as a partial defence
- Intoxicated person cannot form specific intent but may be found guilty of a general offence
Self Defence
- Legal use of reasonable force to defend yourself + property
- Criminal Code allows ppl to use force in self defence, but not excessive force = no more than necessary
- Use/exchange of force must be reasonable
R v. Lavalle - What Happened?
- Angelique Lavalle was in an abusive relationship
- One night she shot her partner in the back of the head as he was leaving a room
- She testified that he told her he would come back + kill her later that evening
- She believed him + able to prove that he had physically abused her for many yrs
R v. Lavalle - Result?
- Supreme Court found that it was reasonable for Lavalle to use lethal force in this situation, even though her partner was leaving the room
- Established the Battered Women Syndrome defence
- BWS: Caused by severe + usually prolonged domestic violence
- Set a precedent as an extension of self defence
Typical self defence case - danger is immediate
BWS - danger may not be immediate but instead constant
Duress
- When someone is THREATENED/coerced to do smth against their will
- Similar to the necessity of defence - accused claims to have been forced to commit a crime bc of being in imminent danger
Mistake of Fact
Shows a lack of mens Rea due to an honest mistake.
Ignorance of the Law
Not knowing a particular offence
NOT A VALID DEFENCE
Ignorance of the Fact
Not understanding all of the details of a situation
CAN BE A DEFENCE
Entrapment
Police action induces a person to commit a crime.
Provocation
A person is “provoked” to lose their self control - result: commits a crime
Juries
- Members of the public who are randomly selected to hear a case + decide verdict on serious indictable offences
- 12 selected to serve through empanelling
- Jury panel: group of citizens selected for possible inclusion
- If a case is controversial - # of jurors increases in the jury panel
- Final decision must be unanimous or else the jury is hung = undecided
- In controversial cases, a jury may be sequestered (isolated) until the case is over
Who can be a juror?
- Cnd citizen
- At least 18 yrs old
- Fluent in English/French
- Mentally competent
- A resident of a province/territory for at least 1 yr
EXEMPTIONS to who can be a juror
- Politicians
- Judges, lawyers, law students
- Ppl visually impaired
- Doctors, veterinarians
- Ppl w/ certain mental/physical disabilities
Challenge of Jury List
- Crown & defence may challenge the validity of the jury list - rarely done
- May be successful if a side can prove the list fraudulent/biased
Challenge for Cause
- Crown/defence may wish to exclude a potential juror for a specific reason
- Usually based on the belief that a juror has some bias
- May be used multiple times as necessary
Peremptory Challenge
NO LONGER EXIST
- Crown/defence may wish to exclude a potential juror w/out a specific reason
- Based on a “gut feeling” of a lawyer or as a strat
Jury CANNOT…
- Discuss case w/ anyone outside of the jury
- Follow media reports on the case
- Disclose any info from their deliberations even after a trial has finished
