X hits on this document

130 views

0 shares

2 downloads

0 comments

35 / 50

FACTS

The appellants convicted of first degree murder for killing a policeman. The appellants and others committed a bank robbery and a series of carjacking and hostage taking incidents.  

ISSUE

Was there evidence to show Gamble’s common intent with Nichols?

HELD

Yes. Appeals dismissed.

RATIO

There was powerful evidence (her presence, driving the getaway car, etc.) which a jury might well have found to have been done by Mrs. Gamble for the purpose of aiding Nichols to commit the robbery.

NOTES

Have a look at p. 1064 to see how the appeal court justice would have instructed the jury though he didn’t feel there was a miscarriage of justice just because the trial judge didn’t do it the same way.

R. v. Logan [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731

FACTS

The accused were involved in a robbery where someone was shot and severely injured.  Neither accused had done the shooting and claimed they knew nothing about the plans to use guns but Logan had boasted about planning the robberies.  The trial judge said the jury could convict if the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or ought to have known that someone would should with the intention of killing.  They were convicted of attempted murder.   The C.A. overturned this.  The Crown appealed.  

ISSUE

Is it a principle of fundamental justice that a party to any offence cannot be found guilty of the offence based on a lower standard of requisite mens rea than that required for convicting the principal? (In short, is "ought to have known" in s. 21(2) too low a standard of mens rea?)?

HELD

Yes.  Crown's appeal dismissed.

RATIO

Section 21(2) doesn't violate the Charter for most offences.  However, attempted murder is one of the few offences for which the Constitution requires subjective intent and therefore the objective component "ought to have known" contravenes ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter without being saved by s. 1.

Canadian Dredge and Dock [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662

FACTS

Corporation convicted of conspiracy to defraud.  This is the leading decision on the "identification doctrine" under which Canadian Courts impute fault, including mens rea, to corporations.  The S.C.C. confirmed the convictions and took the opportunity to assert and justify the identification doctrine.

35

Document info
Document views130
Page views130
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 06:37:15 UTC 2016
Pages50
Paragraphs1465
Words18797

Comments