|
Criminal Law In Canada
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. Most criminal laws have been codified in the ''Criminal Code'', as well as the '' Controlled Drugs and Substances Act'', '' Youth Criminal Justice Act'' and several other peripheral statutes. Prosecution In all Canadian provinces and territories, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the " King in Right of Canada". A person may be prosecuted criminally for any offences found in the ''Criminal Code'' or any other federal statute containing criminal offences. There are two basic types of offences. The most minor offences are summary conviction offences. They are defined as "summary" within the Act and, unless otherwise stated, are punishable by a fine of no more than $5,000 and/or 6 months in jail. Examples of offences which are always summary offences include trespa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Criminal Law
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws. Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, where emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation, rather than on punishment or rehabilitation. Criminal procedure is a formalized official activity that authenticates the fact of commission of a crime and authorizes punitive or rehabilitative treatment of the offender. History The first civilizations generally did not distinguish between civil law and criminal law. The first written codes of law were designed by the Sumerians. Around 2100–2050 BC Ur-Nammu, the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." Model Penal Code § 2.02(1) Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 127 Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but as a result of bad aim or other cause the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the ca ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Perka
''R. v. Perka'', 9842 S.C.R. 232 is, along with '' R v Latimer'', a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal defence of necessity. Background In 1979 a group of Cali, Colombia marijuana traffickers headed by Jaime deJesus Cordoba-Vargas and Jaime deJesus Marin-Jaramillo organized a venture to smuggle marijuana into the U.S. aboard the motor vessel ''Samarkanda'', a surplus U.S. Navy net tender converted to a tugboat and once called ''Alexandra''. The standard procedure for the group was to load contraband on "mother ships" in South America, sail north, then rendezvous with smaller "contact" vessels off the U.S. coast. They operated under the theory that if the ship picked up contraband on the high seas and delivered it on the high seas they would not violate any national laws except perhaps that of its flag country, Colombia. To a certain extent, the smugglers were correct. The stranger on Whale Creek In February 1979, the Drug Enforcement Administration in Seatt ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Necessity In Canadian Law
Canadian criminal law allows for a common law defence of necessity. ''Necessitas non habet legem;'' "Necessity knows no law." This well-known maxim reflects the theoretical basis of the defence of necessity: that in dire circumstances of looming peril, the claims of positive law seems to weaken.Kent Roach et al, Criminal Law and Procedure (Toronto: Emond, 2015) at 961. This controversial common law or judge-made defence has only been firmly recognized in Canadian law since 1984. It is recognized in Canada as a defence for crimes committed in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril in which the accused has no safe avenue of escape or legal way out of the situation. There is an objective or reasonableness requirement that requires the accused to reasonably resist the pressures that led to the commission of the crime. Anyone is entitled, by virtue oof the Criminal Code, to rely upon any excuse or defense available to him at common law. The defence of necessity The defence of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Daviault
''R v Daviault'' 9943 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity. Background On May 30, 1989, Henri Daviault, a 73-year-old chronic alcoholic, was asked to get some alcohol for a friend of his wife. The woman was a semi-paralyzed 65-year-old and required a wheelchair. Daviault brought a 40oz of brandy to the woman's house around 6pm. She drank half a glass and then passed out. Daviault drank the rest of the bottle while she slept. Some time in the evening she went to the washroom and was accosted by Daviault who took her into the bedroom and sexually assaulted her. Daviault was arrested and charged for sexual assa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Substance Intoxication
Substance intoxication is a transient condition of altered consciousness and behavior associated with recent use of a substance. It is often maladaptive and impairing, but reversible. If the symptoms are severe, the term "substance intoxication delirium" may be used. Substance intoxication may often accompany a substance use disorder (SUD); if persistent substance-related problems exist, SUD is the preferred diagnosis. The term "intoxicated", used by laymen, most often refers to alcohol. Classification The ICD-10 ''Mental and Behavioural Disorders due to psychoactive substance use'' shows: *F10. alcohol *F11. opioids *F12. cannabinoids *F13. sedatives and hypnotics *F14. cocaine *F15. caffeine *F16. hallucinogens *F17. tobacco *F18. volatile solvent *F19. multiple drug use and use of other psychoactive substances Caffeine The discussion over whether the coffee (caffeine) “buzz” counted as intoxication or not was hotly debated during the early to mid 16th century. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Stone
''R v Stone'', 9992 S.C.R. 290 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of the defence of automatism in a criminal trial. Background In 1993, Bert Stone married Donna Stone and they lived together in the Okanagan Valley. He had previously been married two other times and had teenage children from his second marriage. Their relationship was a difficult one, where he was charged with physical abuse after previously trying to run Donna over in a parking lot in Winfield, BC. In 1994 he made arrangements to make a business trip to Vancouver and visit his son without telling his wife. When she found out what he planned to do, she insisted on going with him. According to Bert Stone, the visit to his son was cut short when Donna threatened to lean on the car horn until the police arrived. He made a comment about getting a divorce, which greatly upset her. Bert drove into an abandoned lot and stopped the car. She began to yell and scream, and belittle him. He testified t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Automatism (case Law)
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act. For example, Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror. In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R.E.M., was cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills. In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder. The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Ruzic
''R v Ruzic'', 0011 SCR 687 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the common law defence of duress and constitutionality of the defence under section 17 of the ''Criminal Code''. The Court held that section 7 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' requires that the defence of duress be available to an accused even when they were not under immediate threat of bodily harm at the time the offence was committed. Background Marijana Ruzic was 21-year-old Yugoslavian who lived in Belgrade with her mother. A man had threatened to harm her unless she assisted him by smuggling heroin into Canada. The man stalked her for some time and began threatening her, eventually escalating to violent assaults. Ruzic eventually complied and flew to Canada. She was arrested at Toronto Pearson International Airport for importing heroin. At trial, she pleaded that she only committed the crime under duress. A defence of duress, under section 17 of the ''Criminal Code'', is av ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Duress
Coercion () is compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against a party. It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desired response. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, or even torture and sexual assault. For example, a bully may demand lunch money from a student where refusal results in the student getting beaten. In common law systems, the act of violating a law while under coercion is codified as a duress crime. Coercion can be used as leverage to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion can involve not only the infliction of bodily harm, but also psychological abuse (the latter intended to enhance the perceived credibility of the threat). The threat of further harm may also lead to the acquiescence of the person being coerced. The concepts of coercion and persuasion are similar, but various factors dist ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Absolute Liability
Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (''mens rea''). In a crime of strict or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defence of a “mistake of fact” is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defence. Strict or absolute liability can also arise from inherently dangerous activities or defective products that are likely to result in a harm to another, regardless of protection taken, such as owning a pet rattle snake; negligence is not required to be proven. Australia The Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 defines absolute liability in Division 6, subsection 2: Absolute liabili ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability (criminal)
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which (Law Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the ("guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of . Strict liability laws were created in Britain in the 19th century to improve working and safety standards in factories. Needing to prove on the part of the factory owners was very difficult and resulted in very few prosecutions. The creation of strict liability offenses meant that convictions were increased. Common strict liability offenses today include the selling of alcohol ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
