! ! !

""#$%$

! !

Actus Reus
Review & Background Actus Reus: o Guilty act; prohibited act; bad act o Broadly defined by Criminal Code o Broadly interpreted by judges o For conviction in criminal and regulatory law ! Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed prohibited act o One element of two ! Must be combined with Mens Rea Codifying The Prohibited Act Codification o Conviction rarely flows from common law (judge made law) o Must be an act prohibited by statute or regulation ! Criminal CODE of Canada Ideal of predetermined, codified law o Citizen know what acts are illegal o BUT Broad definition and interpretation make this difficult, if not impossible to achieve o Is codification enough? ! What if you just didnt know about that law? Ignorance of the law o Not a valid defense in criminal law!

R v Molis [1980]
Appellant: Albert Peter Molis ; Respondent: Crown On appeal from Ontario Court of Appeal Charge: trafficking restricted drug (MDMA) Not a restricted drug months prior to arrest New law published in Canada Gazette Law was not yet in the Criminal Code Issue Is ignorance of law a reasonable defence? Appeal is dismissed: Molis lost Decision Ignorance is not a defence ; Gazette is public & sufficient Reason ! Did not meet standard of due diligence (did not try as hard as he could have to find out if it was illegal) ! Even if not yet in the Criminal Code, ignorance is not in Relevance a defence o But how some statutes are passed raises questions about the constitutionality of law ! Legislators WANT an ignorant public ! Entrapment ! Ex. G20 secret law

Facts

! ! ! ! ! ! !

"!

! ! o !""#$%$

! !

Codifying the Prohibited act ! June 26-27, 2010 ! Leaders of 20 countries meet in Toronto ! 1100+ arrested: largest mass arrest in Canadian history ! Public Works Protection Act, 1939 Meant to protect public buildings during war Passed June 2, 2010; no debate Publicized July 2, 2010 Criminal Liability A. Actus Reus + Mens Rea Simultaneous principle o Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea (guilty deed & guilty mind) ! Not as simple as it may seem ! Need not have intent throughout act ! Ex. Hit X with intent to kill X then throw X over the cliff; and later X dies later of exposure you are still guilty of killing X

R v Cooper [1993]
Appellant: Crown; Respondent: Lyndon Paul Cooper On appeal from Newfoundland Court of Appeal ! Cooper was drinking with victim ! Sitting in the jeep Cooper was hit so he grabbed the Facts victims throat ! Cooper woke up, and saw the body ! Cooper charged with 2nd degree murder ! Nature of intent required for murder conviction under Criminal Code s 212 (a) (ii) a. Subjective intent to cause bodily harm Issue b. Subjective knowledge that bodily harm is likely to result in death ! Appeal allowed: Crown won Decision ! Cooper had intent at some point during the Actus Reus Reason ! Blacking out is not a defence ! Mens Rea & Actus Reus must coincide at some point Relevance ! Intent need not be throughout

Negligence departs from this principle Fail to repair an oil digging rig, which leads to spill

B. Causation o If the criminal act leads to the prohibited result o Broadly defined by the federal Parliament o Not all causation issues are codified o Thin Skull Rule: take victims as they are

#!

! ! !""#$%$

! !

Test of causation: o Must establish if accuseds actions were the significant contributing cause ! What is significant? What is not trivial? Impaired driver kills jaywalker: impaired driving does not lead to jaywalking, jaywalking is the most significant contributing cause, therefore jaywalker is held responsible ! Must be established beyond a reasonable doubt o 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 ! 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 ! How to decide when cause was not trivial? ! Usefulness of de minimis test for juries ! Appeal was dismissed: Nette lost ! 2nd degree murder charge was upheld ! Jury was correct, but the instructions should change ! Test should ask if cause is significant, rather than ask if cause is not insignificant ! Causation test should be worded positively for juries deciding 2nd degree murder charge ! Avoid the Latin

Facts

Issue Decision Reason Relevance

C. Omission Failure to Act o Must establish if inaction is the prohibited act o Criminal law prohibits bad act doesnt usually require good acts o Legal duties in Criminal Code s 215: parent, spouse, or guardian with duty to provide necessaries of life o Failure to execute these duties could lead to manslaughter or criminal negligence charge ! $!

! ! !""#$%$

! !

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

Issue

Decision Reason Relevance

! Charge: Failure to provide the necessaries of life for her son ! Objective test applied ! Naglik was convicted ; her husband was not ! Applicability of objective standard of care ! Does Criminal Code s 215 violate Charter s 7 (stigma)? o 215(1) everyone is under legal duty a. 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 ! Appeal and cross-appeal allowed ! Convictions set aside; retrial allowed ! Objective standard applies ! Does not violate Charter s. 7 ! Failure to act can lead to criminal conviction ! Duty of care does not violate Charter s 7

D. Voluntariness Voluntary act o Act must be voluntary for there to be Actus Reus o Establishes minimum mental or fault element ! Involuntary conduct as defence Ex. Voluntariness of human trafficking

%!