Law 12 Unit

Introduction
In the broadest terms, Crime is defined as an action or the
omission of an action, that is prohibited by law.
There are four conditions that must be met when determining
whether something is a
crime or not. These are
the defining activities.
1. The action must be
considered wrong by
society

Introduction
In the broadest terms, Crime is defined as an action or the
omission of an action, that is prohibited by law.
There are four conditions that must be met when determining
whether something is a
crime or not. These are
the defining activities.
1. The action must be
considered wrong by
society

Introduction
2. It must cause harm to society in
general, or to those in need of
protection.
3. The harm must be serious both in
nature and degree.
4. The action must be best dealt with
through the criminal justice system,
in order to ensure that the accused
person is discouraged from
committing similar offences in
future, and other citizens are
discouraged from committing
similar offences.

Introduction
The definition of crime varies from culture to culture. What
some may perceive as a wrong or omission, we may not.
Things seen as a crime in the past may not be seen as a crime in
the future.
For example, it was once
a criminal offence to
attempt suicide in
Canada. Currently that
is no longer the case,
though assisting in
suicide for another is
criminal.

Introduction
In every society, no matter
what their parameters,
criminal activity is seen as
being antisocial, immoral,
and a violation of the
majority groups standard of
conduct.
There are a few actions that are
considered criminal in all
societies throughout history.
What might those be? .

Introduction
Historians and Anthropologists
have discovered that every
ancient and modern civilization
has the following two things as
utterly taboo and criminal:
Treason
The betrayal or disloyalty to
ones society.
Incest
The sexual relations between
siblings or between parents and
children.

Introduction
However, despite the agreement on
these two crimes, societies do
not always agree on how best to
investigate and punish those
crimes.
For example, in Canada, murder is
a crime... But the courts must
consider many factors in
determining whether the
accused is guilty of the offense or
not. Key questions need to be
answered.... And some of those
are....? .

Introduction
1. What was the intent of the
person who did the killing? If
it was accidental and without
intent then is it really murder?
2. If it was with intent, was it for
a good reason? Ie: An abused
wife kills her husband in selfdefence. The person accused
may have had no choice but to
use violence in the preservation
of his/her own life... Or the life
of loved ones.

Introduction
1. What was the intent of the
person who did the killing? If
it was accidental and without
intent then is it really murder?
2. If it was with intent, was it for
a good reason? Ie: An abused
wife kills her husband in selfdefence. The person accused
may have had no choice but to
use violence in the preservation
of his/her own life... Or the life
of loved ones.

Introduction
In other words, the accused
persons guilt cannot be
determined solely based on the
fact that the action happened.
The courts task is to look at all the
facts and situational evidence
around the event and determine
whether the killing was actually
a crime or not.

Similar problems center around

the issue of punishment...

Introduction
A simplistic method of deciding on
an appropriate penalty would be
to kill the person who took
anothers life... or perhaps to
have the death penalty for all
crimes, regardless of severity.
(Star Trek: Next Generation)

Since Old Testament times, the

term Eye of an Eye and Tooth
for a Tooth has been suggested
as the best way to deliver justice.
However, scholars now believe the
phrase is misunderstood...

Introduction
Rather than encouraging a society to offer
violence in retribution for a crime, the
intent was merely to encourage society to
design a punishment that was equal to the
crime.
For example, in ancient society a man who
stole from another man would not be
killed, but would perhaps be fined, be
forced to make restitution...
or perhaps have his hand chopped
off. (Middle East).

Introduction
Most Canadians agree that
punishment should fit crime,
but peoples expectations on
what is a just punishment is
widely varied.
Developing a system of justice
that satisfies everyone and
does everything society wants
it to is extremely difficult... If
not outright impossible. But
like every institution, the legal
system must evolve along with
peoples views on justice.

What is a measured response?

What justice is fair, fits the
crime, and serves as an
effective deterrent?

Quick Case Study

R. v. Coyne (1994)...
Donald George Coyne, 42, was paid $5500.00 to arrange for a
fire in the Calgary Hotel in July 1993.
A witness testified that Coyne paid two men from the hotel to
set the fire. He drove the men to the hotel tavern, supplied
the gasoline and matches, and
waited for them to be finished.
In the fire, which destroyed the
hotel, a veteran fire fighter
perished as he searched for
victims inside.
Coyne was arrested and went
to trial.

Quick Case Study

1. Examine each of the four conditions that must exist for the
action to be considered a crime. Apply them by answering
the following:
a. Would most people in our society consider setting the fire
as a wrongful act?
b. Did the arson cause harm to a person? To Canadian
society?
c. Was the act seriously harmful? (Why/Why Not?)
d. Were Coynes actions best dealt with through the criminal
system to discourage him and others from doing this?
Would this stop other people from doing it?
e. Whats an appropriate punishment for Coyne?

Actual Sentence Given Follows...

Quick Case Study

The courts charged Coyne with Manslaughter, saying that the
intent was not to cause harm to another human being, and
the death was not deliberate.
The maximum penalty for Manslaughter is life in prison.
Coyne was sentenced to 8 years in jail.

Do you feel that was a just sentence?

Criminal Law in Canada

Criminal law = a set of rules to prohibit and punish acts
that injure individuals and society as a whole.
Criminal acts can be divided into three main sections:
1. The protection of people

2. The protection of society

3. The protection of
the moral norms of
society.

Criminal Law in Canada

To protect people, the government
makes laws to make certain
actions against others a crime...
Ie: assault, rape, and murder.
Property is very important (and all
old law was based on it) and so
related laws include protection
from trespassing and theft.
We also use law to protect society
against laws that are considered
immoral or wrong... But whats
the problem there? .

Criminal Law in Canada

Problem:
Society no longer agrees on what is immoral or wrong, and
that also changes from decade to decade.

Soliciting for Prostitution, Illegal gambling, use of

restricted drugs, and distribution of pornography are
examples of things many
people consider immoral.
Which ones are
criminal offences? .

Criminal Law in Canada

Prostitution is illegal in Canada...
Though you can run a massage
parlour (which offers sex also). Its
also legal in a number of states,
through brothels (and in Ont 10).
Banned drug use is illegal... Unless
you have a permit for medicinal
use.
Illegal gambling is a crime, though
its parameters are hazy.
Pornography is not illegal unless it
involves minors... or violence.

Criminal Law in Canada

Tahani, who married her husband Majed when she was 6 years old and he was
25 years old, poses for a portrait with her former classmate Ghada, also a child
bride outside their mountain home in Hajjah, Yemen, June 10, 2010. Nearly half
of all women in Yemen were married as children.

Criminal Law in Canada

By the Constitution Act of 1867, the
right to create criminal law was
given to the federal government.
The main body of federal criminal
law is contained in the Criminal
Code of Canada.
Other criminal legislation is also
created by the federal govt. For
example, the Narcotics Act was
written to regulate the
distribution and use of narcotics.
Whats the advantage of having the
federal government create the
criminal laws? .

Criminal Law in Canada

The advantage is that the law is the same from Vancouver to
St. Johns. A crime in BC is also a crime in the Yukon. It
makes tracking, capturing, and punishing criminals easier.
In the United States, every state
has its own code of criminal law
and its own police force.
Escaping capture in one state
can be as easy as crossing to
another (where the offense
may not be illegal). Jurisdiction
doesnt extend to another state.

Criminal Law in Canada

Because of this problem, several close states created a regional
system of law enforcement that shares databases and criminal
records.
For larger areas, the FBI holds jurisdiction, and can work in all
states across the country.
In Canada the provinces do have the ability to make some of
their own laws
(ie: traffic laws), but
the penalty for a
provincial law
violation usually
has the maximum
penalty of 2 years
in jail.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

Civil Law and Criminal Law are not the same.
Civil law refers to laws that govern private relationships
between individuals, for example, members of a family or
parties in a contract.
This is different from
criminal law, which seeks
to protect society, rather
than solve personal disputes.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

Criminal acts affect the general publics safety, so the
government investigates and prosecutes those acts.
The government also punishes those who are guilty.
If there is a financial penalty to the crime, the money paid
goes to the government, rather than to an individual (as
in civil law cases).
In some cases, a victim can
pursue compensation after
a criminal trial through
civil court
(ie: O.J. Simpson).

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

A criminal trial places the
responsibility for proving the
guilt of the accused solely on the
crown, which prosecutes the
accused.
A lawyer for the crown is known as
the Crown Prosecutor.
A Crown Attorney, or Crown
Counsel, represents the
governments interest in
investigating and punishing the
crime and protecting public
peace. The government pays the
fees of the Crown Prosecutor.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

Since one of the foundations of our
legal system is the belief that a
person is innocent until proven
guilty, the onus falls on the
prosecutor to prove the accuseds
guilt... Rather than the accused
needing to prove their innocence.
The accuseds offense needs to be
proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Reasonable doubt may
occur when there is another
probable explanation for the
accuseds involvement in the
crime.

Caught on camera, in the act of

the crime... not a lot of
reasonable doubt possible.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

If the defense can provide
reasonable doubt, the accused is
given the benefit of the doubt and
acquitted or found not guilty.
The charges are then dismissed.
If the prosecutor has evidence that
helps the accused, they are
required to bring that forward as
well. Their role is not to win the
case, but bring out all evidence
and let it speak for itself.
A prosecutor that withholds
evidence commits a criminal
offense.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

The government has two conflicting
roles in the criminal justice
system. On the one hand, it needs
to protect its citizens and the
interests of society. This done
with a police force being granted
the authority to investigate
criminal activities, arrest and
detain suspects, and generally
pursue the goal of ensuring a safe
society.
Similarly, the Crown is given the
authority to prosecute the
arrested person by bringing all
evidence forward in trial.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

On the other hand....
The government has the
legal duty to protect the
rights of the accused.
The balance between these
two roles causes much
debate in society, and can
lead to some very hard
decisions for judges.
Frustrations over this can
lead to citizen action,
ranging from protests to
vigilante justice.

Case Study
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
The accused (Askov, Melo, Hussey, and Gugliotta) were
charged with a number of serious offences, either together
or alone, involving extortion, threatening with and using a
prohibited weapon, assault, and criminal negligence in the
operation of a motor vehicle.
Askov waited a long time to
be tried, due to requests
made by the Crown. When
his day in court came, nearly
three years after he was
charged...

Case Study
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
...he applied to the court to prohibit the Crown from
proceeding against him, arguing that there had been a long
and unreasonable delay. He believed that his right to be
tried in a reasonable time (section 11(b)
of the Charter), had been denied.
The Court agreed that Askov had
suffered a long and unreasonable
delay.
Even so, the Crown was allowed to
proceed and argue that he had not
suffered prejudice, which would
allow the trial to go ahead.

Case Study
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
Ultimately, the judge agreed with Askov that his Charter of
Rights had been violated, and the case was dismissed.
Following that, some 50,000 cases were thrown out of court
on the basis of unreasonable delays. Many serious
offences were not tried, and charges against the accused
people were dropped.
The pressure on the
prosecution was
enormous.
Prepare a solid case...
and do it fast.

Case Study
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
Later the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on two other cases
that balanced this swing.
In R. v. Sharma (1992) and R. v. Morin (1992), the Court
reviewed the elapsed time before a trial commenced and
provided a guideline for assessing whether an accuseds
rights had been infringed.

Case Study
The Court held that the general
approach to determining
unreasonable is not by
applying a mathematical or
administrative rule. Instead,
the decision is left to the
judge to balance the charter
and the right to a trial within
a reasonable amount of time
and other legitimate factors
that may cause a delay... Such
as the gathering of evidence,
interviewing of witnesses,
etc.

Sort of like this... But in a legal sense.

Fall off, and there are problems

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

Under Civil Law, the most common punishment given to a
person who has lost a civil action is to pay an amount of
money to the person who suffered loss or harm.
The plaintiff files a complaint in court against the defendant
by suing him or her. If the plaintiff wins the case, the
defendant has to pay damages as ordered by the judge.
Decisions are made differently
here than in criminal cases.
Judges reach a decision based
on what probably happened.

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law

Then, the judge determines whether loss or harm was suffered
and if so, by whom?
If loss or harm is suffered, the judge has to determine who is
responsible for it... And it may not be either of the people
involved in the case.
Finally, the judge must considered
the sort of compensation that
is appropriate in the case.

Short Research Assignment...

1. How do punishments for various crimes vary from country
to country? Pick a crime (stealing, murder, rape, etc) and
look at a) Canadas common punishment for it. Then find
the punishment given in
b) A major European country
c) a South American Country
d) Communist China
e) Islamic Iran
f) and Medieval Europe (500-1500 AD).
2. How has the concept and application of justice changed in
Canada over its history? Pick two examples of laws or codes
that have changed, and discuss what change was made,
when, and why.
Do these two individually.

The Causes of Crime

There are currently about 40,000
criminal offences in the federal
and provincial laws of Canada.
People in the country are
accountable if they break any of
them.
Ignorance of the law is not an
excuse. Just because you didnt
know it was a crime, doesnt mean
you have the right to do it.
For these laws to be effective, the
public needs to be aware that they
serve the best interests of society,
and that they should be kept.

The Causes of Crime

If the members of society recognize
this basic principle, then who is it
that breaks the law, and what
compels them to do so?
For many, there is a false perception
that some groups are more likely
to be criminals than others.
- The Poor
- Minority Groups
- Youth
These people may be seen as
criminals just because they
belong to a demographic group.

The Causes of Crime

There is no single profile that
describes the people who perform
a criminal act. However, there are
some interesting statistics:
Most of the population in todays
penitentiary are..... (See what you
think)
AGE RANGE: .
Young
The most common age for male
and female inmates is between
20 and 34 years of age.

The Causes of Crime

GENDER: .
Male
95 percent of the penitentiary
population is male. Women
make up just 5 percent of the
population, though that ratio
has been creeping up since the
1960s (when it was about 2%).
MARITAL STATUS: .

Unmarried
Almost 60 percent of the
prison population is
unmarried.

The Causes of Crime

RACE / ETHNIC ORIGIN: .
Caucasian
80 percent of the male inmate population is Caucasian, and
among women inmates its 70 percent.
FIRST TIME / MULTIPLE / REPEAT OFFENDERS: .
First Timers
Most inmates are
serving their first
offense.

The Causes of Crime

CRIME / SENTENCE (Severity / Type): ..
Minor Offences
Most inmates are serving
with a sentence of under 6
years, and for a crime
involving some sort of theft.

Are these statistics what you expected?

If not... Where did our incorrect perceptions
come from?

The Causes of Crime

There is no single set of conditions that
can be linked to all criminal behaviour.
Several factors can be linked to crime,
including (but not limited to):
- alcohol and drug abuse
- poverty
- violence at home
- mental and emotional
disturbance....
- lack of education
- association with
known criminals

The Causes of Crime - Substances

Alcohol and Drugs have been
shown to inhibit normal
decision-making faculties.
Chronic users may lose the
ability to reason properly, and
often react to situations in
unexpected and unreasonable
ways.
When a person becomes addicted,
they lose interest in other aspects of life, and serving the
addiction becomes their main focus. Drug usage is connected
to unplanned crimes that are often violent... Including
domestic crime and young offenders crime.

The Causes of Crime - Home

Poverty and Abuse at home can
result in long-term mental and
emotional disturbances. The
person may become emotionally
distant, unconcerned about their
welfare, or the welfare of others.
This can lead to violent or
repeated crimes.
There is no constant correlation
between poverty/violence and
crime, as not all abused kids
become criminals, and many
criminals had a great home life...
However, there is a strong
connection between the two.

The Causes of Crime - Education

Many Canadian criminals have little education. The limits this
places on people can lead to extreme frustration. Those who
cannot verbally communicate anger may chose to express
that violently.
There is often frustration at not
being able to get interesting or
well-paid jobs.
Youth criminals often have low reading
and writing abilities, and have
attention-deficit disorders. These
youth tend to be difficult students
in a structured and academic setting,
and respond negatively to criticism
they receive.

The Causes of Crime - Criminals

Associating with criminals greatly increases the likelihood of a
person turning to crime themselves. If the criminal is
respected, the person may adopt
those standards for societal living,
rather than the ones taught by
the rest of society.
Most people obey most of the laws,
most of the time. To prevent people
from falling into patterns of criminal
behaviour, governments create
penalties for laws that (supposedly)
deter people from doing the crime.
Education and access to food and
emotional support also prevent
crime.

Film Bowling for Columbine

& Research Essay
How does the film portray
criminal culture in the
USA, and how does it
compare itself to Canada?
Is it an accurate portrayal
of both countries? What
type of criminal is
portrayed here, and in
American media
(according to the film)?
Are the gun laws in the
USA causing their far
higher levels of violent
crime?

Elements of a Crime
There are two important elements in nearly every
criminal offence. The recognition of these two is so
old, that they are referred to today by their Latin
names, indicating they were used already in Roman
criminal law.
Actus Reus refers to a wrongful action by which
crimes are committed.
Our federal legislature
recognizes the actus reus
of a crime by writing a law
to limit it.

Elements of a Crime
Mens Rea is the criminal intent of the
person performing the wrongful act.
This means that the individual must
have had a guilty mind at the time of
the action. Usually both aspects
need to be in place for a crime to be
committed.
The person must have intended
to act criminally at the time of
the act itself.

Elements of a Crime
Most criminal actions involve an action that creates a harm or
loss to someone else. For example, in section 268(1) of the
criminal code:
268 (1). Every one who commits an aggravated assault
who wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of
the complainant.
Frequently, the criminal
code does not describe
the action, but instead
the consequence of
the action and its
effects.

Elements of a Crime
Most criminal actions involve an action that creates a harm or
loss to someone else. For example, in section 268(1) of the
criminal code:
268 (1). Every one who commits an aggravated assault
who wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of
the complainant.
Frequently, the criminal
code does not describe
the action, but instead
the consequence of
the action and its
effects.

Elements of a Crime
The focus on the consequences of the criminal action
means that any actions taken to achieve the loss or
harm constitute actus reus.

That means the conduct of the accused must have

caused the consequence to occur.
For example, code on
damage to
property:
430 (1). Every one commits
mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages
property.

Elements of a Crime
Under this section, the Crown can proceed against the
accused once the loss or harm is reported, regardless of
the method used to cause that loss or harm.

Actus reus can also refer to circumstances where a person

omits to do something that is required by law. For
example, failing to give assistance to a police officer
when you are requested to,
constitutes an actus reus
of a crime.

Elements of a Crime
129. Every one who
(a) Resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in
the execution of his duty or any lawful citizens acting in the
aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or
peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person
or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that
his is required to do so, or,
(c) Resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful
execution of a process against lands or goods or
in making a lawful distress or seizure, is guilty of
(d) an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years,

Elements of a Crime
In some situations, a certain state of
a person, such as being in
possession of stolen property, can
constitute the actus reus of the
offense.
There are even examples where
being in a certain place constitutes
as offense, even if the accused
participates in no other illegal
activities.
What might some of those places
be?

Elements of a Crime
In addition to actus reus, meaning a prohibited action,
omission, or state of being, it refers to an action that is
voluntary and not coerced by another.
If a person is forced to rob a bank at gunpoint, they are not
responsible for the criminal act
they are committing.
Similarly if a person is involved in
a crime without their knowledge
ie: a child being used by a parent
or older sibling and being
unaware that they are taking part
in a crime.. they cannot be held
responsible.

Elements of a Crime
If a person is not in full possession of
their faculties at the time of the
incident, it is said to be involuntary.
If, for example, a person commits a
crime while sleepwalking, then no
actus reus has occurred. There is
considerable evidence accepted by the
courts that people are not legally
responsible for their actions while
asleep, because they are not aware of
what they do while asleep either
during or after.

Elements of a Crime
Mens Rea
Mens Rea refers to the
criminal intent of the
person performing the
wrongful act at the time of
the action. Most
commonly, the crown
must prove that the act
was intentional, wilful,
knowing, reckless, or
careless to prove the mens
rea of the crime.

Elements of a Crime
Intent to commit a crime means that the person voluntarily
does something wrong and knows or foresees the results of
the wrongful action.
Some people in society are considered incapable of forming
the intent to commit a crime...
- Children who are under 12
- People with a mental disability
However, is this true? At what
age does a child become capable
of knowingly doing something
wrong?

Elements of a Crime
Intent to commit a crime means that the person voluntarily
does something wrong and knows or foresees the results of
the wrongful action.
Some people in society are considered incapable of forming
the intent to commit a crime...
- Children who are under 12
- People with a mental disability

Elements of a Crime
Many sections of the criminal code
directly address the intent of the
accused person by using terminology
such as wilfully, intentionally, or
means to as part of the description
of the offense.
Ie:
49. Every one who wilfully, in the
presence of Her Majesty,
(a) does an act with intent to alarm
Her Majesty or break the public
peace
(b) does an act that is intended to
cause bodily harm to Her Majesty...

Elements of a Crime
In order to be found guilty, the crown
would have to prove that the
accused actions were wilful, that
those actions occurred in the
presence of Her Majesty, that the
actions were intended to alarm the
Queen, break the public peace, or
harm the Queen.
If they cannot prove all those
elements, then the accused is not
guilty of a crime.

Elements of a Crime
Motive vs. Intent
The intent to commit a criminal act
should not be confused with motive.
Motive describes why someone might
have a reason to commit a crime.
Intent shows a persons willingness to
actually do it.
If a person is motivated to steal money
to buy an iPod, it is the intent to steal
that forms the mens rea. The motive
would be to buy an iPod.

Elements of a Crime
In some instances, there may be only
general intent to commit a wrongful
act. This refers to the intent to
perform the act in question, with no
further ulterior motive or purpose.
If a first criminal activity is done... So
that a second criminal activity can be
done, the second activity constitutes
specific intent.
This means a person doing the act had
an intent beyond the act itself.

Elements of a Crime
For example in the following criminal code excerpt, the phrase
for the purpose of highlights this.
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or any place open to
public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop a motor
vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian
or vehicular traffic..
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person
or in any manner communicates with
any person,
For the purpose of engaging in
prostitution or obtaining the sexual
services of a prostitute is guilty of an offense.... Etc.

Quick Case Study

Jordan is on the witness stand, testifying
in a trial against her friend, who is
accused of aggravated assault. Under
pressure from the prosecuting
attorney, Jordan feels cornered and
pressured by her desire to help her
friend and her need to get the
questioning over as quickly as
possible.
When asked if she was in the room
when the (alleged) assault took place,
Jordan blurts out, No, I wasnt in
there, when she had been.

Is there mens rea here? .

Elements of a Crime
YES.
Knowledge on the part of the accused
may also make up the mens rea. For
example, if someone says something
under oath that they know to be
false, that person is guilty of perjury.
The fact that the person knowingly
misleads the jury by lying fulfills the
mens rea... even if its done under
pressure or spur of the moment (ie:
without premeditated intent).

Elements of a Crime
If a person is so reckless or negligent in his or
her actions that a crime occurs, even if
he/she did not mean to commit
it, the person may still be
accountable for the wrongful
act. The mens rea element of the
crime would be met by the reckless or
negligent behaviour.

Elements of a Crime

Reckless means taking unjustifiable risks

with the safety or property of others. There
may not be the certainty that a criminal act
with happen, but if the actions are reckless
in nature, the probability that someones life
or property will be in danger will make a loss
or harm more likely.

Elements of a Crime
It is the probability and awareness of the risk to others that
constitutes the mens rea in this instance.
For example:
A drunk driver fails to stop at a red light and causes an
accident. The driver didnt intend to cause an accident, but
the recklessness of driving drunk...and not stopping...is
likely to cause danger and/or harm.
The mens rea can be found in the
negligence of a person for the safety
of others and their property.

Elements of a Crime
The Criminal Code defines criminal
negligence in this way:
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent
who
(a) In doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is
his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for
the lives or safety of other persons.
An action is criminally negligent when it
fails to meet the standard of
responsibility that is usually expected
of a reasonable person.

Elements of a Crime
A reasonable person is one
who has the expected level
of skill and ability under
the circumstances.
For example A car
mechanic allows an
improperly repaired car to
be driven away by an
unsuspecting customer...

Elements of a Crime
In the past 10 years, the Canadian courts have expanded mens
rea to include wilful blindness. This is when a person is nearly
certain that an activity is criminal but chooses to close
his/her eyes to it... often because it is profitable to do so.
- Bribes to look the other way
- Buying very cheap items from the back of a van

- Transporting a case for a criminal, and not

asking whats inside it.

- Witnessing a crime, but not wanting
to get involved and so ignoring it...
when it is safe and possible
to report it.

Elements of a Crime
Offences that require no mens rea.
Usually, both actus reus and mens rea need to be present
for a crime to have occurred. However, there are two
exceptions.
One is called the strict liability offence, and requires a
criminal act or omission of an act to
have happened but does not require
mens rea. Generally these offences are
created by provincial and federal
statutes to protect the health, safety,
environment, and general public
welfare.
Examples follow...

Elements of a Crime
Examples of these would be wildlife laws and traffic laws at the
provincial level, and issues relating to taxation, workers safety,
and environmental protection at the federal level.
Since these dont require mens rea, (Guilty Mind) there is really
only one defence for a charge. A person must have used all due
diligence to avoid committing the offence...also known
as reasonable care.
Ie: - Drove carefully around wildlife
- Checked before operating heavy
machinery around others
- Used honest accountant for taxes
and provided accurate info.

Elements of a Crime
The second type of offense that doesnt
reqire mens rea is an absolute liability
offence. This type of offence has no
possible defence. The fact that the
criminal act happened is enough to
convict.
Eg: Driving over the speed limit.
Though there may be no intent to speed,
the mere fact that a person sped is
enough. Saying the speedometer didnt
work or that you missed the last speed
limit sign does not work as a defence to
this charge... However, crying or
cleavage might work (depending on the
cop).

Mini Case Studies

Refer to your workbook for the case studies and places to write
down your thoughts.
There are 9 separate case studies to look at here.

Mini Case Studies

1. While walking in the park, Bernice observes Candace beating
and kicking Danielle. Bernice stops, watches a while, then
walks on. Bernice makes no effort to assist Danielle and does
not report the incident. Is Bernice
guilty of an offence?
Why/Why Not? .

Answer:
No, Bernice is not guilty. There is no
actus reus. Bernice was under no
legal duty to assist, because there
is no certainty that the action
witnessed was criminal, and no
clear ability to report safely and
promptly.

Mini Case Studies

2. Gerald, while hunting bear, claims he is attacked by a bull
moose and shoots it. Provincial law makes it an offence to shoot
a moose at any time or season. Is Gerald guilty of an offence?
Why/Why Not? .
Answer:
Yes, Gerald is guilty. Strict Liability Offence. Intent is not
important in this case. Is it self defence? Not likely.
However, acquittal
is possible when
it goes to trial. Did
he use all due
diligence to avoid
situation and need
to shoot?

Mini Case Studies

3. Herman sets a leg-hold trap to catch a wolf, but
unintentionally catches a dog. Instead of freeing the dog
immediately, Herman asks around to find out who owns the
dog. The owner is found four hours later; meanwhile the dog
has been suffering pain for an extra four hours. Cruelty to
animals offence? Why/Why Not? .
Answer:

Herman is guilty of cruelty to

animals. There was no
intent in his trap, but the
suffering was unnecessary
and easily stopped. The
omission of action here is
the offense.

Mini Case Studies

4. Ron went with Henry to the home of James. Ron knew that
Henry intended to assault James. While Henry assaulted
James, Ron prevented a friend of James from calling the
police or stopping the attack. Is Ron guilty of an offence?
Why/Why Not? .
Answer:

Yes, Ron is guilty of an

offence. He helped
make it happen. He
aided it. This is well
beyond witnessing
and/or being afraid
or unable to report.

Mini Case Studies

5. Thomas wanted to sell narcotics to Marvin. Kent acted as a
negotiator between Thomas and Marvin as to price. Kent
never handled the narcotics or the money. The sale was made
and Thomas was arrested for trafficking narcotics. What is
Kents position? Why? .
Answer:

Kent is guilty. He aided

others in the crime,
knowingly and fully
aware that is was a
criminal offence. He
cant even claim
ignorance of any kind.

Mini Case Studies

6. Fred went through a marriage ceremony with Susan. Fred
was already married to Corrina and believed the marriage to
Susan was bigamy. He intended to desert Susan after getting
her money. Susan learns about Freds previous marriage and
has him arrested. Unknown to Fred, however, Corrina died
the previous year. Is Fred guilty of an offence? Why/Why
Not? .
Answer:

No. Fred is not guilty

(though hes a jerk). There
is mens rea, but no actus
reus. Corrinas death
makes it no longer a
crime.

Mini Case Studies

7. Paul wants to poison Britney and purchases a substance from
Hernandez, an underworld figure. Paul administers the
substance to Britney who suffers no harm. The supposedlydangerous substance was substituted by Hernandez without
Pauls knowledge, and is harmless. Is Paul guilty of an
offence? Why/Why Not? .
Answer:
No. Paul is not guilty. There is
mens rea, but no actus reus.
Wrongful intent alone is not
enough to convict.

Mini Case Studies

8. Gretta buys a gun, purchases bullets, finds out when Peter will be
home, calls a taxi, drives to the street where Peter lives, rings the
doorbell, is let into the home by Peters wife, enters Peters living
room, pulls out the gun and aims it at Peter, and then pulls the
trigger. The gun fails to fire because it has a defective firing pin. At
what point, if any, did Gretta attempt to kill Peter? Is Gretta guilty
of an offence? Why/Why Not? .

Answer:
Its important to separate the planning stage
from the active stage. Likely Gretta
moved into that stage when she called
the cab. She is not guilty of an offence.
Again, no actus reus despite full intent.

Mini Case Studies

9. Donald and Bradley plan to rob a store. They carry an air pistol that looks
like a firearm but is defective and cannot fire anything. They enter the
store, and threaten Vincent, the owner. Vincent pulls a gun out from
behind the counter and fires at Donald, but misses and hits a customer
just walking in the door. The customer dies on the scene. Are Donald and
Bradley guilty of homicide or wrongful death?
Why/Why Not? .
Answer:

No, they are not guilty. Was this death a result of their
offence? No it wasnt. Was it a probable
consequence that they should have realized? No. It
was an unpredictable and accidental result of
their crime only. Based on what they used as a
weapon, there was no likelihood of them
expecting this event could ever happen.

Intro to Criminal law Offences

Complete

The Causes of Crime Aileen Wuornos

A&E Documentary on
Aileen Wuornos.

Of key interest:

What were her causes of crime?