X hits on this document

133 views

0 shares

2 downloads

0 comments

1 / 50

Criminal Law

Patrick Healy – Winter 2004

Introduction4

Basic Principles6

Principle of Legality6

Frey v. Fedoruk [1950] Crimes must be known to law.6

R. v. Pharmaceutical Society (Nova Scotia) [1992] Vague = no guidance legal debate7

R. v. Heywood [1994] Doctrine of overbreadth created7

Presumption of Innocence7

Woolmington. v. D.P.P. [1935] The accused is presumed innocent.8

Elements of Guilt8

Conduct8

Acts, omissions and states of being: voluntariness8

R. v. King [1962] Actus reus requires willpower.8

Rabey v. R. [1980] Automatism is unconscious involuntary act – always a defence8

R. v. Parks [1992] Automatism not actually a “defence” – part of actus reus8

R. v. Stone [1999] Automatism = impaired consciousness – accused must prove8

R. v. Lucki [1955] No legitimate purpose to sentence someone who can’t control action9

R. v. Wolfe [1975] Intent lacking therefore can’t uphold charge9

R. v. Ryan [1967] Protagonist wannabe can’t argue involuntariness.9

Kilbride v. Lake [1962] No other option available – can’t be criminally responsible10

Acts10

Marshall v. R. [1969] No control over persons possessing so not guilty10

R. v. Terrence [1983] Measure of control is essential element of possession10

Re Chambers and the Queen [1985] Possession evidence enough to go to jury11

R. v. Jobidon [1991] Victim’s consent no longer valid once knocked unconscious11

Bolduc and Bird v. R. [1967] Patient consented to peeping tom in doc’s office11

R. v. Cuerrier [1998] HIV-infected liar not guilty of assault – consent valid12

R. v. Lohnes [1992] Shouting obscenities doesn’t count as disturbance12

R. v. Burt [1985] Convicting car owner by default violates the Charter13

Omissions and states of being13

Fagan v. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1968] This omission = assault13

R. v. Miller [1983] Omitting to put out his own fire = arson13

Moore v. R. [1979] Omitting to identify himself to cop got Moore in trouble14

R. v. Thornton [1991] HIV+ blood donor guilty14

Thornton v. R. [1993] HIV+ blood donor guilty, accept analogy to medical procedure15

R. v. Browne [1997] Can only recklessly breach a duty clearly made/binding intent15

People v. Beardsley [1907] Neglected duty must be legal duty, not just moral ob.15

Causation16

Smithers v. R. [1978] Kick outside de minimis range, remember thin skull rule16

R. v. F. (D.L.) [1989] Connection between dangerous driving and not seeing victim16

R. v. Harbottle [1993] Holding legs down = enough for 1st degree murder17

R. v. Cribbin [1994] Cribbin guilty for leaving victim to drown in his own blood.17

1

Document info
Document views133
Page views133
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 05:14:46 UTC 2016
Pages50
Paragraphs1465
Words18797

Comments