3. RELIANCE ON ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS OF LAW
If an accused made a mistake of law by relying on an innaccurate source of law, the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse seems to require a conviction even though some exceptions have emerged.
R. v. McLean (1974)
The accused was involved in a car accident while driving a vehicle in the course of his employment at an airport and was charged with driving while disqualified. His defense was that he was relying on advice he had been given over the phone by the MV Branch. They informed him that it was not necessary to have a valid license while driving on airport roads (federal legislation requires a license for this). The judge found that this mistake related to a regulation, which are more difficult to find. CC19 is not absolute.
R. v. Cancoil (1986) Ont. CA
Officially induced error. This defense is available to a provincial offence, even if there is a provincial equivalent of CC19.
R. v. Jorgensen (1995) SCC
The accused was charged with illegally selling obscene material without lawful excuse under CC162.a. The issue arose as to whether the accused could rely on the defense that the adult videos were approved in Ontario. Sopinka said no. Lamer said that the defense of officially induced error should be allowed for both criminal and regulatory offences. Roach says this defense is limited and does not harm the ignorance of the law rule.
INCAPACITY
Those who lack capacity (young children, insane people and intoxicated people) are said to have no mens rea. Until 1982, the CC age for exemption from criminal liability was 7 – that a child under this age committed the actus reus and mens rea didn’t matter. In 1983, the age was elevated to 12 in CC13. In CC13, those that are between 12-18 years old are dealt with under the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Now, 16-17 year-old youths can be transferred to adult court (if they commit murder (maximum ten year sentence), manslaughter, attempted murder or aggravated assault).
INSANITY/MENTAL DISORDER
Difficult area – controversy has raged for years between psychiatrists and lawyers. Lawyers say that medical experts don’t understand the legal concept of criminal responsibility. Psychologists say that the law’s understanding of medical knowledge is outdated. Insanity is not a medical term. Incapacity arises in two contexts:
1. With respect to ones ability to stand trial
2. With respect to whether one had the capacity needed to form the necessary mens rea.
Mental disorder is assessed by looking at the state of the accused’s mind at the time the act was committed. Prior to 1991, the rules for insanity came from McNaughton (1843). In 1991, Canada traded the words “insanity” for “mental disorder.” In such cases, a full acquittal is not given. Rather, the accused is deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Evidence short of establishing a full CC16 defense could still raise a reasonable doubt about some forms of mens rea.
McNaughton (1843) Eng. HL
M suffered from delusions. He believed the PM was persecuting him and went to London to kill him. He ended up shooting and killing the PM’s secretary instead of the PM. The HL affirmed the availability of the insanity defense if it is “clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of his act, or, if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.”
CC16 – Mental Incapacity
16.1 No responsibility for an act or omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person 1. incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of the act or omission or 2. knowing that it was wrong. Inability to appreciate the consequences of punishment doesn’t preclude an appreciation of the consequences of the act.
16.2 Presumption that people don’t suffer from a mental disorder until the contrary is proven on a balance of the probabilities.
16.3 The burden of proof in showing that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder is on the party that raises the issue. One of few defenses that places the onus of proof on the accused. Oakes established that reverse onuses contravene s.11d and must be justified under s.1; however, Chaulk established that the reverse onus provision for the defense of insanity is justified under s.1. Either the defense or Crown can raise the defense of mental disorder.
0 comments ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment