X hits on this document

121 views

0 shares

2 downloads

0 comments

3 / 50

Dunlop and Sylvester v. R. [1979] Evidence doesn’t point to rape participation34

R. v. F.W. Woolworth Co. (1974) Inadvertent aid ok so long as purpose is not crim.34

Gamble and Nichols v. R. (1978) Evidence available to go to jury on aiding and abet.34

R. v. Logan [1990] Must have subjective intent for attempted murder35

Canadian Dredge and Dock [1985] Corporate crim liability – identification doctrine35

Inchoate offences36

R. v. Ancio [1984] Attempted murder = nothing less than specific intent to kill36

R. v. Sorrell and Bondett (1978) Equivocal act may not be enough to prove attempt36

R. v. Deutsch [1986] LeDain’s distinction between attempt and mere preparation36

United States v. Dynar [1997] Can find guilt for attempting the impossible37

R. v. Celebrity Enterprises Ltd. (No. 2) [1977] Not unlawful if can’t be convicted for it37

R. v. Gralewicz [1980] Case on interference with lawful union activities38

R. v. Dungey (1979) Attempt to conspire to commit another offence is not an offence38

Aspects of Innocence39

Automatism39

R. v. Stone [1999] Trying to set the record straight on automatism39

Intoxication40

R. v. Bernard [1988] Recklessly getting drunk = mens rea for general intent40

R. v. Daviault [1994] Charter allows accused to show extreme intoxication defence41

R. v. Robinson [1996] How to instruct juries on intoxication defence42

Mistake of fact [Not covered on 2004 final exam]42

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen [1990]42

R. v. Ladue [1965]43

R. v. Kundeus [1976]43

Duress44

R. v. Ruzic (April 20, 2001) Immediacy requirements for duress too severe44

Self-defence44

R. v. Lavallée [1990] Must physical assault be in progress to apprehend death? No.44

R. v. Petel [1994] Past threats are relevant in assessing apprehension.45

R. v. Malott [1998] We must overcome stereotypes about battered women.45

Necessity46

Perka v. R. [1984] Necessity defence is an excuse, not a justification.46

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling, and Scott (1985) Necessity defence unavailable here.46

R. v. Latimer (2001) No air of reality to defence of necessity (3 requirements)47

Provocation [Not covered on 2004 final exam]47

R. v. Hill [1986]48

R. v. Thibert [1996]48

Entrapment [Not covered on 2004 final exam]49

R. v. Mack [1988]49

3

Document info
Document views121
Page views121
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 01:05:46 UTC 2016
Pages50
Paragraphs1465
Words18797

Comments