LawyerSelect.ca - Criminal Law Blog

How You May Be Liable For Someone Else's Crime Counselling A Criminal Offence This blog has been brought to you courtesy of LawyerSelect.ca In  R v. Sharpe , t he Supreme Court held in this case that while the word “counsel” could have the ordinary meaning of “to advise”, for the purpose of the criminal law it must be limited to cases of actively inducing . In  R v. Hamilton ,  the Actus Reus for counselling is the deliberate encouragement or active inducement of the commission of a criminal offence.  The Mens Rea for counselling is where the accused either intended that the offence counselled be committed, or knowingly counselled the commission of the offence while aware of the unjustified risk that the offence counselled was in fact likely to be committed as a result of the accused’s conduct. If you have a question regarding the content of this blog, or wish to seek further legal advice on a related issue, please visit LawyerSelect....

This blog has been brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca The essential elements of a conspiracy are: The intention to agree; Completion of the agreement; and A common design to do something unlawful The offence is complete before any acts, which go beyond mere preparation, are taken to put the design into effect – more preliminary than attempt crimes Impossibility (factual) affords no defense to conspiracy In  R v. Gralewicz ,  the appellants were charged with unlawfully conspire to prevent members of a union from participating in the lawful activities of their union. The facts of the case, and the reasoning provided by counsel for the respondent are not important.  Suffice it to say that this case centered upon the issue of whether or not the meaning of “unlawful purpose” alluded to in the section of the Code (namely, sec. 465) could include offences that were unlawful under the common law .  The respondents argue...

This blog has been brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca In  R v. Cline , the court stated that  “… The consummation of a crime usually comprises a series of acts which have their genesis in and idea to do a criminal act; the idea develops to a decision to do that act; a plan may be made for putting that decision into effect; the next step may be preparation only for carrying out the intention and plan; but when that preparation is in fact fully completed, the next stop in the series of acts done by the accused for the purpose and with the intention of committing the crime as planned cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as remote in its connection with that crime. The connection is in fact proximate.” – Laidlaw J.A. In  R v. Ancio , t he appellant was acquitted by the Court of Appeal for attempted murder, and the Crown appealed his acquittal to the Supreme Court. The appellant took a sawed-off shotgun to the residence of a man whom his wife was l...

This blog has been brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca The Criminal Code definition of Self-Defence is as follows:   Sec. 34(1) – generally applies where a person has been unlawfully assaulted, without having provoked the assault . Force may be repelled by force provided the responsive force is not intended to cause death or GBH and is no more than necessary to enable the accused to defend themselves. No further use of force is justified. Sec. 34(2) – is more specific. The subsection applies where the responsive force applied by one who has been unlawfully assaulted by another causes death or GBH, and requires that the death of or GBH to the assailant be caused under a reasonable apprehension of death or GBH from the initial assault or its pursuit. The responsive force must be inflicted in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that the person assaulted cannot otherwise preserve oneself from death or GBH. The use of “reasonable” imports an objective el...

This blog has been brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca Sec. 17 of the Code and the Common Law require the following to be proved: The threats by which the accused is compelled must be of immediate death or bodily harm ; The threats must emanate from a person who is present when the offence is committed ; The accused must believe the threats will be carried out ; and The accuse must not be a party to a conspiracy or association. In  R v. Paquette , t he appellant was charged with non-capital murder pursuant to sec. 21(2) of the Code , where it was alleged that he had formed a common unlawful intention with the principles of the offence. He argued, however, that he was compelled by threats of violence and/or death , thus raising the defense of duress covered by the Code in sec. 17 – compulsion by threats . That section, however, excludes the use of the defense of duress for certain crimes; namely, treason, murder, piracy, attempted murder, sexual...

This blog is brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca Generally speaking, a   search warrant   is an order of the court   issued by a   judge   or   justice of the peace   that authorizes   law enforcement   officials (or some other government agents) to conduct a   search   of a person or location for   evidence   of a   crime   and to seize   evidence if it is found. Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the Supreme Court has, on my occasions, commented and defined the circumstances surrounding the issuing and enforcement of search warrants. Hunter v. Southam was the first post- Charter case that dealt with search warrants to reach the Supreme Court. One of the central issues identified in Hunter was whether the newly enacted sec. 8 of the Charter – the right to privacy – changed how search warrants should be issued. In Hunter , the director of th...

This blog has been brought to you courtesy of  www.ghobriallaw.ca Have you ever been left with the feeling that the officer who arrested you didn’t exactly fit the “poster-boy” description of that honest, noble, cop who only acts in good faith? Did the officer “over react” when you asked him why you were being arrested, prompting him to use excessive force, or did he write something in his notes that you’re sure isn’t true? These scenarios make up just a few examples of what “police misconduct” may be defined as. Ascertaining whether or not an arresting or investigating officer in your case has prior acts of misconduct may help strengthen your case by either showing the officer has committed this sort of behaviour in the past, and thus, is the type of person who would do it, or by casting a general, negative shadow over the officer’s credibility as a result of prior acts of misconduct. The Police’s Duty to Disclose Misconduct to the Crown Attorney The Supreme Court iss...