THE PURPOSE OF
CRIMINAL LAW
OSCAR PISTORIUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTc5UrfEiTg
CRIMINAL LAW



Criminal law is a set of rules to prohibit and
punish acts that injure individuals as well as
society as a whole.
In order for a crime to be criminal, there must be
a public dimension to it. Criminals are
prosecuted by the state on behalf of the public, or
all of us.
The main purpose of criminal law is to control
and prevent conduct that may be offensive or
potentially harmful
NEED FOR CRIMINAL LAW
 Keep
order in society
 Offers penalties for crimes help deter
 Does little to compensate victims
 Public wants:
 criminal law should protect people and
property
 Some want harsh penalties to discourage
potential offenders or to punish
wrongdoers
 Some want rehabilitation
 Criminal
actions have four conditions that
must exist in order for an act to be considered
criminal. They are:
 the actions must harm other people;
 the actions must violate the basic values of
society;
 using the law to deal with the action must
not violate the basic values of society; and
 criminal law can make a significant
contribution to resolving the problem.
 The
punishments for criminal law can be
divided into three general areas of
lawmaking:
 the protection of people,
 the protection of property, and
 the protection of moral norms of a society.
THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

Criminal Code is the main source of criminal law
in Canada



Other Criminal offences are listed in statutes passed by
Parliament (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)
Describes offences that are considered crimes, as
well as punishments for crime
Judiciary (judges and courts)



interpret the criminal laws and apply them to individual
cases
Determines if a law trespasses upon citizen’s rights as
outline in the Charter
Determine and follow precedence
ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
1. 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


(1)
(a)
Eg. s. 265 of the Criminal Code defines assault:
A person commits assault when
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
 To prove actus reus, the Crown would have to demonstrate
that
(a) there was no consent
(b) 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)

AUTOMATISM AND ACTUS REUS
Broome v Perkins [1987]
The defendant had driven eratically while suffering from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar level caused by an excess of insulin in
the bloodstream), but was convicted of driving without due care
and attention because of evidence that from time to time he had
exercised conscious control over his car, veering away from other
vehicles so as to avoid a collision, braking violently, and so on.


R v Antoniuk (1995) The defendant was drowsy with drink and
her lover found her unconscious on her living-room floor. The
victim then hauled her to bed, her head banging on the stairs, and
raped her. The defendant went to the kitchen and returned with a
knife and stabbed her lover. The defendant argued that she was
not responsible for her actions as she had been suffering from
automatism from the shock of being raped. At Kingston Crown
Court the trial judge said "If her amnesia is real, because of
automatism, then she is not to be convicted". The jury found her
not guilty of wounding charges.
2. 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
A.

INTENT
Intent, in the legal sense, means to carry out and
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

SCENARIO:
Greg voluntarily gets drunk at a bar and kills Ted. Greg
has never met Ted before, and witnesses say that Ted
was heavily insulting Greg; furthermore, Greg is so
drunk that he has absolutely no memory of these
events, and appeared to have very little control over
his body. Nevertheless, Greg somehow manages to
put Ted's head through a window, which results in
Ted bleeding to death.
Greg is clearly not guilty of first degree murder, but
neither is he innocent of Ted's death. He will probably
be found guilty of negligent homicide, because
his voluntary state of intoxication placed him in a
generally culpable mental state in which "general
intent" satisfies the mens rea requirement.
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.
B.
MOTIVE
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

C.

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.
D. RECKLESSNESS AND
BLINDNESS

WILFUL
Crown can also establish mens rea by proving accused
acted reckless.

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

Willful blindness
 Suspects a criminal outcome but does not ask the
questions to confirm
 Eg. transporting something illegal such as drugs in a
trunk