Uploaded by Owen Anderson


Analyzing a Case
Briefly describe the facts of the case by explaining the issues and who was
involved. If the case involves a Charter challenge, identify the Charter right or
freedom argued in the case.
The accused is being charged with a "breach of trust" for leaking cabinet secrets
about new plans for a half supply half war ship. Mark Norman is being accused of
leaking these secrets to a close acquaintance at the ship building company and a
CBC reporter. The accused denies all claims while the defense is working up a case
to get more relevant documents as they only released 52 out of 10 000. The reports
indicate that the case will be dropped against Norman in the following weeks.
Frame the legal question that is the focus of the case .
Did Vice-Admiral Norman actually leak the secrets or are the code names that he used were just
way too common and similar to the ones that he uses for semi normal tasks and they just got
intermingled with unexpected reproductions? Another legal question that could be added to the
actual legal proceedings that followed this case would be, How much power does the crown actually
have when determining all of the related evidence pertaining to the case at hand?
" Whether accused’s actions rose to level of seriousness required to establish actus reus of offence
— Whether accused intended to use public office for purpose other than public good "
Explain the ruling of the court. Summarize the reasons given for the decision.
The courts havent reached a verdict yet as the court is still in progress I believe when the case
resumes that the new judge will look more between the lines rather than the direct subject matter. I
feel like since the documents wont be released for the defense of Norman that the case will be
dismissed. All in all this case is really confusing and with all of the news on it, it is hard to piece all of the
stories together and the conflicting opinions on it.
Identify the precedent or Charter application for this case .
Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his
office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of
trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a
private person.
In previous cases I found that the
most common conclusion of the
case is that the appeal should be
allowed, the conviction overturned
and an acquittal entered.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
Copyright O 20 IO Pearson Education Canada, 11 division of Pearson Canada Inc.
Law in Action eGuide. Pennission to reproduce is restricted to purch&Sing schools.
Page 90