Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Defences to criminal charges (intoxication (review (specific intent…
Defences to criminal charges
general defence
alibi defence
lack of mens rea and actus reas
accused provides evidence (alibi) proving he/she was somewhere else
says the accused was not there at the time of the crime
specific defences
mental disorder
lack of mens rea
replaced defence of insanity
says a person cannot be held criminally responsible because a mental disorder has diminished their ability to know the difference between right and wrong
person is presumed to be sane until proven otherwise
a person can have a mental disorder, but not necessarily a legal mental disorder
results of a successful plea of mental disorder
set free (if not a threat to society)
sent to a mental institution
fit to return to society
completes maximum time if given a jail sentence
intoxication
partial lack of mens rea
review
specific intent
planned and deliberate
general intent
swerve the moment
intoxication may only be used as a defence for crimes requiring specific intent, eg. murder, aggravated assault, break and enter with intent
cannot use this defence if you become intoxicated for courage
results of a plea of intoxication
crime will be lowered to one requiring general intent, eg. murder to manslaughter, aggravated assault to assault
provocation
partial lack of mens rea
says you were so provoked you didn't know what you were doing
can only be used if charged with murder
results of a successful plea of provocation
murder is reduced to manslaughter
necessity
lack of mens rea
occurs when a person is forced to act because he/she had no other choice, eg. had to drive with suspended license because father had heart attack and no way to get help
cannot be used if
homeless (trespassing)
hunger (steal food)
human jettison (sacrifices one life to save another
results to necessity is set free
duress/compulsion
lack of mens rea
forced to commit a crime because of threats of immediate death or serious injury to yourself or a member of your family
threat must be immediate and present
cannot use this defence if you are the principle offender in a violant act
results of a successful plea of duress/compulsion
Double jeopardy
basic idea is that the crown cannot make repeated attempts to convict a perosn
3 basic areas
1)
a)autrefois acquit - previously acquitted of the crime
b) autrefois convict - previously convicted of the crime
results of a successful plea of autrefois acquit/convict - set free
2) kienapple - a person cannot be tried for more than one offence arising from the same cause or matter or a person cannot be charged with more than one offence if they are basically the same eg. theft and robbery
results of of a successful plea of kienapple principle - some charges will be dropped
res judicata - "there has been an issue and that issue has been decided"
this means evidence from one trial cannot be used at another if the evidence is basically the same
eg. - case of grill
accused of killing his wife & son
found not guilty of killing his wife
put on trial for sons death
since evidence was basically the same, it was not allowed
results of a successful plea of res judicata - evidence will be disallowed