Case Law Flashcards
R V WILSON (Interest in property)
The Defendant was attempting to manufacture methamphetamine at his rented property when the clan lab ignited and the house burned down. in addition to the drugs charges, Wilson was charged with recklessly damaging by fire 267(1)(b).
Court of appeal ruled that he couldn’t be convicted as he had an interest in the property allowing a defence.
R V HARNEY (Recklessly)
Conscious and Deliberate taking of an unjustified risk where the consequences complained of could well have happened, together with the intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk
Proving intent - subjective test. That the defendant took an unjustified risk
Objective test - The risk was unreasonable to take in the circumstances. Would a reasonable person have taken the risk in the same circumstances?
R V HARNEY Continued
The Defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully that he had been aiming for his leg knowing he would’ve been seriously injured but denied wanting to kill him.
R V ARCHER (Property damage)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or temporary or permanent impairment of its use or value.
R V MORLEY (Cause loss)
Loss is assessed by the extent to which the complainant position prior to the offence has been diminished or impaired.
R V HARPUR (Attempted/sufficiently proximate)
The Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. The defendants conducted may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much is left to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.
R V COLLISTER (Intent inferred)
The onus is generally on the crown to prove offenders intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Police officers were charged with demanding with menace after causing a man to believe he would be arrested for soliciting homosexual acts. unless paid. Although no express demands were made, intent could be inferred.
SIMESTER and BROOKBANKS (Danger to life)
Knowing or correctly believing, the defendant may believe something wrongly but cannot know something that is false.
