Final Case Names

Question 1

Dunlop and Sylvester

Answer 1

At scene of Rape - Mere presence at a scene of crime is not sufficient to ground culpability

Question 2

Swaine case

Answer 2

Showed a violation of section 7 - made a review board so determine if NCR should be detained

Question 3

Parks case

Answer 3

Drive and killed in laws while a sleep - psychological blow automatism

Question 4

Chaulk case

Answer 4

Broke into neighbours place and said he was drugged and in automatism state … Test for self induced intoxication

Question 5

Stone case

Answer 5

Defined automatism, said there should be a presumption that any state of automatism is the result
Of a mental disorder

Question 6

Daviault case

Answer 6

Section 33.1 - also said we shouldn’t have specific and general intent offences

Question 7

Perka case

Answer 7

Boat - must prove there is no other reasonable legal alternative available MUST HAVE proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided

Question 8

Li case

Answer 8

Criminal organization

Question 9

Hendrikse case

Answer 9

Accused may loose defence of necessity if author of their own misfortune

Question 10

Hibbert case

Answer 10

Cannot rely on defence of duress if there is a safe avenue of escape - courts must take in particular circumstances

Question 11

Morgantilar case

Answer 11

First successful assertion of a necessity defence in relation to a serious criminal charge - abortion

Question 12

Lavallee case

Answer 12

Expert testimony in battered wife syndrome

Question 13

Patel

Answer 13

Threat does not have to be imminent section 34(2)

Question 14

Gunning case

Answer 14

4 elements to defence of house : possession of dwelling, must be peaceful, must be trespasser, reasonable force

Question 15

Bernard case

Answer 15

Distinction should be abolished for purpose of applying the defence of
Intoxication