R. v. Gee
It can NEVER be reasonable to kill a person in defense of property; however, this rule does not preclude a person whose house is being broken into from claiming self-defense under CC34 or 37.
R. v. Spencer (1977) BCSC
Can a tenant in a dwelling house be said to be in peaceable possession of the common hallway of the building? No. The landlord did not grant possession of the common hallway to his tenant. Therefore, the hallway was not in the possession or control of the tenant under CC41.
ENTRAPMENT (Part of the Abuse of Process Doctrine)
Entrapment occurs is the state offers a person an opportunity to commit a crime without reason for suspecting criminality of the person being pursued or while not engaged in a bona fide inquiry in a high crime area. It involves going beyond providing an opportunity to offend and inducing the commission of an offence. The remedy is a stay of proceedings, which is not a defense in the traditional sense and has nothing to do with the accused’s culpability. Police can only offer an opportunity to commit an offence if:
R. v. D’Amato
Affirmed a conviction for narcotics even though the undercover police officer pursued him with threats of violence, etc. The majority supported the defense of entrapment (which derives from a lack of mens rea) but Estey, in dissent, attempted to define the defense of entrapment based on power to stay the proceedings. The majority concluded that the defense of entrapment didn’t arise on the evidence. “In the result, the scheme must be so perpetrated must in all the circumstances be so shocking and outrageous as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
R. v. Mack (1988) SCC
The appellant was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking but brought an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment. The accused was invited by an undercover police officer on numerous occasions to re-enter the drug trade but refused each time. The officer made Implied threats against M’s life and the accused eventually relented. The onus is on the accused to prove on the civil standard that the state’s actions amounted to entrapment. Police can’t simply “go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis.” At the same time, for drug offences they should have leeway. Police condict should be evaluated on an objective standard. Factors to be considered in determining whether the police have gone beyond providing an opportunity to commit an offence include:
• The type of crime
• Would an average (not reasonable) person in the position of the accused have been induced into commission
• How persistent were the police in pursuing the entrapped person
• Was there deceit, fraud or trickery
• Were human characteristics such as emotions exploited
• Was the person particularly vulnerable, i.e mentally disabled
• Threats
• Were constitutional values trampled upon
PROVOCATION (Partial Defense to Murder)
0 comments ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment