Unit 3 - Criminal Law Pt. 2

Question 1

Defences (main 3)

Answer 1

1. Deny committing the act; disputing actus reus
2. Argue they lacked intent; disputing mens rea
3. Attempt to justify why they committed the act

Question 2

Alibi

Answer 2

Arguing that the accused wasn’t at the scene of the crime when it took place = couldn’t have committed the crime

Question 3

Alibi - STRENGTHS

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Alibi - WEAKNESSES

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

Automatism

Answer 5

An involuntary action by a person who cannot control their actions + who is in a state of impaired consciousness.

Question 6

Non-Insane Automatism

Answer 6

• “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

Question 7

Questions During a Fitness Test

Answer 7

• 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?

Question 8

Intoxication

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

Self Defence

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

R v. Lavalle - What Happened?

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

R v. Lavalle - Result?

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

Duress

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Mistake of Fact

Answer 13

Shows a lack of mens Rea due to an honest mistake.

Question 14

Ignorance of the Law

Answer 14

Not knowing a particular offence
NOT A VALID DEFENCE

Question 15

Ignorance of the Fact

Answer 15

Not understanding all of the details of a situation
CAN BE A DEFENCE

Question 16

Entrapment

Answer 16

Police action induces a person to commit a crime.

Question 17

Provocation

Answer 17

A person is “provoked” to lose their self control - result: commits a crime

Question 18

Juries

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Who can be a juror?

Answer 19

• Cnd citizen
• At least 18 yrs old
• Fluent in English/French
• Mentally competent
• A resident of a province/territory for at least 1 yr

Question 20

EXEMPTIONS to who can be a juror

Answer 20

• Politicians
• Judges, lawyers, law students
• Ppl visually impaired
• Doctors, veterinarians
• Ppl w/ certain mental/physical disabilities

Question 21

Challenge of Jury List

Answer 21

• Crown & defence may challenge the validity of the jury list - rarely done
• May be successful if a side can prove the list fraudulent/biased

Question 22

Challenge for Cause

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Peremptory Challenge

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Jury CANNOT…

Answer 24

• 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