ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
CLN4U – Mr. Andrez
SCENARIO
•You are driving along and you are
stopped by a police officer who
notices that you were texting at the
last red light. The police officer
informs you that you have broken
the new law banning cell phones
in Ontario. Are you entitled to use
the fact that you did not know the
law as a defense?
THE ANSWER - NO!
• S. 19 of the Criminal Code states that ignorance of the
law is no excuse for the commission of a crime
• Is this a reasonable assumption?
ACTUS REUS
Refers to “guilty act”
•
The physical act involved in commission of offense
•
The actus reus of a criminal offense is found in its
criminal code definition
•
•
•
Eg. s. 265 of the Criminal Code defines assault:
(1)
A person commits assault when
(a)
Without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that
person, either directly or indirectly
For actus reus, a person must actually hit another
person
ACTUS REUS
• To prove actus reus, the Crown would have to
demonstrate that
1. there was no consent
2. force was applied
EXCEPTION: AUTOMATISM AND ACTUS REUS
• Actus Reus of a criminal act must be voluntary
• If someone shoots someone while sleep walking, he
may not be criminally liable
• E.g. Kenneth Parks case 1992- The Supreme Court
upheld the acquittal of Parks whose defense was
that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his
mother in law to death
• His defense was that he acted involuntarily
(automatism)
MENS REA
• Refers to having a “guilty mind.”
• Phrase infers moral guilt and the accused knowing
they did something wrong
• To meet the legal definition of a crime, the Crown must
prove an act was done with criminal intent OR knowledge
that what he/she did was against the law
1). INTENT
• Intent, in the legal sense, means to carry out an act
with intent, with knowledge, or by being reckless or
wilfully blind to the consequences of an act.
• E.g. If John threw a knife up in the air, which
accidently killed Luke, would Johnny likely be guilty
of manslaugher?
• Yes, because you cannot be “wilfully blind” to the
consequences of your actions
GENERAL INTENT VERSUS SPECIFIC INTENT
• General intent
• Means to commit a wrongful act for its own
sake, with no other purpose or motive
• Dave punches Luke because he is angry. Dave has
general intent to commit assault.
• For mens rea to be proven, all that needs to be done is to
show that Dave punched Luke
GENERAL INTENT VERSUS SPECIFIC INTENT
• Specific intent
• Involves intent in addition to the general intent to
commit the crime
• It is committing one wrongful act to accomplish another
• E.g Burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling-house
with intent to commit an indictable offense. The break and
enter requires general intent, the intent to commit an indictable
offense requires specific intent
• In order to prove burglary, the Crown not only has to show that
a person broke into a house, but also had the specific intent of
stealing.
INTENT VS MOTIVE
• While intent refers to the state of mind with which an act is
done or not done
• Motive is what prompts a person to commit an act or not act
• If a person kills her mother to receive an inheritance, the
inheritance is motive. This does not establish state of mind
to commit murder
• Crown must prove intent by showing killing was planned
and deliberate
2). KNOWLEDGE
• In order to have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime,
a person must have some knowledge of the actus reus of
the crime
• Eg. S 268 1 (a) of the Criminal Code states that “Everyone
who, knowing that a document is forged, uses, deals, or acts
upon it” is guilty of circulating a forged document
• To establish guilt, the Crown only has to prove that the
person knew the document was forged.... Nothing about
intent.
3). RECKLESSNESS & NEGLIGENCE
•
Crown can also establish mens rea by proving accused acted reckless
or negligent.
• Recklessness
• Usually involves taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person
would not take
• Eg. recklessly shooting a pellet gun into a crowd. The accused may
not have tried to hurt someone, but they should have been able to
foresee harm
• Negligence
• doing something or omitting to do something with “wanton
disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”
Example: throwing a beer bottle out of a moving vehicle and injuring
someone
4). WILLFUL BLINDNESS
• Suspects a criminal
outcome but does not ask
the questions to confirm
 turning a blind eye to the
consequences of your
action
 Example: buying stolen property
that you should know has been
stolen
• Eg. transporting something illegal
such as drugs in a trunk
TYPES OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES
CRIMINAL CODE
• Contains 28 parts and includes a range of offenses
• Canada is different from the United States
• US- felonies and misdemeanour offenses
• Canada- Indictable, summary and hybrid offenses
SUMMARY OFFENCE
• Minor offences for which an
accused can be arrested or
summoned to court without
delay. Maximum penalty is
$2000 and/or 6 months
imprisonment.
• Summary offences are tried
in Provincial Court without a
jury (i.e. judge alone)
• E.g. Public Nudity, Cruelty to
animals, trespassing at night
INDICTABLE OFFENCES
• Serious crimes that incur
more severe penalties.
• Penalties for indictable
offences are set out for
each offence in the Criminal
code of Canada.
• Maximum penalty is life,
with no possibility for parole
for 25 years.
• E.g. Perjury, arson, murder
INDICTABLE OFFENCES
• The accused is permitted to
choose the trial procedure for
some types of indictable offences
although for some indictable
offences, the Criminal Code
states the required trial
procedure, but usually the choice
is up to the accused.
There are three types of trial
procedures:
1. trial by a provincial court judge,
2. trial by superior court judge
without a jury, and
3. trial by superior court judge with
a jury.
The most serious of indictable offences, such as murder or
treason, are tried before a judge and jury.
HYBRID OFFENCES
• Known also as dual procedure offences
• Offences where the Crown has the right to choose
whether to prosecute the offence as a summary or
indictable offence depending on the severity and
circumstances of the offence
• E.g. assault, theft under $5000, criminal harassment
QUASI-CRIMINAL OFFENCES
• Technically, laws passed by the provinces, territories, or
municipalities are not considered part of criminal law.
• they resemble criminal law but do not deal with actual
crimes.
• i.e. traffic offences that fall under the Highway Traffic Act
of each province and bylaws passed by municipalities.
• Breaking these laws usually results in a fine.
• a court appearance is not usually necessary, unless you
enter a plea of not guilty.
STRICT VS. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY OFFENCES
STRICT LIABILITY
• For some crimes or offences (less serious), the Crown only
needs prove the actus reus of the offense (just the guilty act)
• Strict liability offenses, the accused will be convicted
unless it is demonstrated that they acted with due
diligence (acted as any reasonable person would under
the circumstances)
• The word knowingly is not in the crime definition
• Only defense would be due diligence– that they took
precautions to avoid dumping pollutants
• Monitoring devices were faulty
• Special training for staff working on keeping river clean
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
• These offenses allow for no defense, fault is not an
issue, and the accused will be convicted based on the
actus reus of the offense
• i.e. driving with a suspended license, speeding
CRIME: COMPANY X DISCHARGES
POLLUTANTS INTO A RIVER
Mens Rea
Offence
Absolute
Liability
Offence
Strict Liability
Offence
Crown must prove
Company X will be
Crown must prove
Actus Reus and
Mens Rea
Did Company X
discharge pollutants
intentionally and
recklessly
found guilty if the
Crown establishes
the Actus Reus of
discharging
pollutants
Actus Reus
Company X can
avoid liability if it
can demonstrate that
it made reasonable
efforts to avoid
discharging
pollutants
Understanding
Incomplete
Crimes
Incomplete Crimes
Incomplete crimes are generally considered to be crimes
where the actus reus element has not been completed.
Note: Attempted crimes are NOT considered
incomplete crimes! The mere fact that an attempt
fails does not mean the crime lacks actus reus.
Incomplete crimes generally include:
• conspiracy
• aiding
• abetting
• accessory After the fact
• Party to common Intention
• Counselling
Sidebar  Criminal Attempts
24. (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence,
does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out
the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence
whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to
commit the offence.
Question: How far does one have to go
to be charged with an “attempted”
offence?
Preparation
is not
enough to
constitute
an attempt.
24. (2) The question whether an act or omission by a person
who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere
preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to
constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of
law.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons
to commit a criminal act. Those forming the conspiracy
are called conspirators.
Party to Common Intention
Shared responsibility among criminals for any
additional offences that are committed in the course
of the crime they originally intended to commit.
Aid / Abet
Aid: Help commit a crime. To assist by way of an action
that, in of itself, is not a crime. (ie. Looking out for police.)
Standing on a corner looking at cars coming down the road
is not a criminal act, but the mental intent in this
circumstance constitutes a criminal offence.
Abet: The act of encouraging or inciting another to do a
certain thing, such as a crime. The act itself may not be
criminal (ie. shouting at someone), but the mental intent (ie.
encouraging someone to commit a crime) is criminal.
Accessory After the fact:
23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing
that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or
assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.
(2) [Repealed, 2000, c. 12, s. 92]
This used to state:
No married person whose spouse has been a party to an offence is an
accessory after the fact to that offence by receiving, comforting or
assisting the spouse for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.
COUNSELLING
• A crime that involves advising, recommending or
persuading another person to commit a criminal
offence.