Appellant: Albert Peter Molis; Respondent: Crown



Yüklə 117,62 Kb.
tarix31.08.2018
ölçüsü117,62 Kb.
#65949

Lecture 3B

R v Molis [1980]

Appellant: Albert Peter Molis ; Respondent: Crown

On appeal from Ontario Court of Appeal



Facts

  • Charge: trafficking restricted drug (MDMA)

  • Not a restricted drug months prior to arrest

  • New law published in Canada Gazette

Issue

  • Law was not yet in the Criminal Code

  • Is ignorance of law a reasonable defence?

Decision

  • Appeal is dismissed: Molis lost

Reason

  • Ignorance is not a defence ; Gazette is public & sufficient

  • Did not meet standard of due diligence (did not try as hard as he could have to find out if it was illegal)

Relevance

R v Cooper [1993]

Appellant: Crown ; Respondent: Lyndon Paul Cooper

On appeal from Newfoundland Court of Appeal



Facts

  • Cooper was drinking with victim

  • Sitting in the jeep Cooper was hit so he grabbed the victims throat

  • Cooper woke up, and saw the body

  • Cooper charged with 2nd degree murder

Issue

  • Nature of intent required for murder conviction under Criminal Code s 212 (a) (ii)

  1. Subjective intent to cause bodily harm

  2. Subjective knowledge that bodily harm is likely to result in death

Decision

  • Appeal allowed: Crown won

Reason

  • Cooper had intent at some point during the Actus Reus

  • Blacking out is not a defence

Relevance

  • Mens Rea & Actus Reus must coincide at some point

  • Intent need not be throughout

  • Concept: de minimis

    • Common law concept used in defence

    • Long form: de minimis non curat lex

      • Law should not punish a “mere trifle” (p. 90)

    • Applies in disputes over trivial matters

      • Small amount of drug possession; theft od small value object

    • Intended to not over-criminalize, stigmatize

    • Can be applied to determine significant contributing cause

R v Nette [2001]

Appellant: Daniel Matthew Nette ; Respondent: Crown

On appeal from British Columbia Court of Appeal


Facts

  • 95 year old woman robbed and left bound with head covered

  • She had been suffocated within the last 48 hours

  • Charge: 1st degree murder

  • Conviction: 2nd degree murder

Issue

  • How to decide when cause was not trivial?

  • Usefulness of de minimis test for juries

Decision

Reason

  • Test should ask if cause is significant, rather than ask if cause is “not insignificant”

Relevance

  • Causation test should be worded positively for juries deciding 2nd degree murder charge

  • Avoid the latin

Facts

  • 95 year old woman robbed and left bound with head covered

  • She had been suffocated within the last 48 hours

  • Charge: 1st degree murder

  • Conviction: 2nd degree murder

Issue

  • How to decide when cause was not trivial?

  • Usefulness of de minimis test for juries

Decision

  • Appeal was dismissed: Nette lost

  • 2nd degree murder charge was upheld

  • Jury was correct, but the instructions should change

Reason

  • Test should ask if cause is significant, rather than ask if cause is “not insignificant”

Relevance

  • Causation test should be worded positively for juries deciding 2nd degree murder charge

  • Avoid the latin

R v Naglik [1993]

Appellant / Respondent: Christine Naglik (appealed conviction)

Respondent / Appellant: Crown (cross-appealed application of law by lower court)

On appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal



Facts

  • Charge: Failure to provide the necessaries of life for her son

  • Objective test applied

  • Naglik was convicted ; her husband was not

Issue

      1. As a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years

Decision

  • Appeal and cross-appeal allowed

  • Convictions set aside; retrial allowed

Reason

  • Objective standard applies

  • Does not violate Charter s. 7

Relevance

Yüklə 117,62 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə