Intro to Criminal Law?
Expectations
 Explain the purpose of criminal law
 Explain the legal definition of a crime
and the concepts of mens rea, actus
reus, and strict and absolute liability
 Analyze theories about criminal
conduct and the nature of criminal
behaviour, and explain what
constitutes a crime in Canadian law
Crime: Canadian Definition
 a violation of a law that prohibits
specific activities, and for which
there is a punishment that is set out
by the state
 In Canada, a crime is anything that
is defined by Parliament to be a
crime.
 Only offences defined in federal law can
truly be called crimes in Canada
 Activities covered by provincial or
municipal laws for which there are penalties
similar to those for criminal acts, are not
“crimes” per se, but are generally referred
to simply as “offences” or “Quasi-Criminal
Law”.
i.e., speeding, not wearing a seatbelt,
drinking under age
To be convicted of a crime…
…two elements are required
Mens Rea
+
Actus Reus
=
A Crime
A defendant must not only
commit a guilty act, he
must also have the
intention to commit a
guilty act and thus have a
guilty mind.
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
In any offence, the actus reus can refer
either to a specific action, or to the
failure to act.
For example, the failure to do something
that is considered to be one’s duty, such a
parent’s duty “to provide the necessaries
of life to a child under the age of sixteen
years” (215), can be considered a wrongful
act under the Criminal Code.
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
The actus reus of a criminal act must be
voluntary.
Actions over which an accused has no
control are not actions which will normally
result in criminal liability.
 Example: A person who has a heart attack at the
wheel of a car and drives into another vehicle has
not voluntarily committed the actus reus of the
offence of dangerous driving.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
 The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant carried out a guilty act with the
criminal intent or mens rea.
 Intent in the legal sense means having knowledge or
being reckless or wilfully blind to the consequences of
an act.
 Depending on the crime, the definition of intent can
change
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
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.
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
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
Sleepwalking a Murder
Defense?
Kenneth Parks, a 23-year-old Toronto man with a wife and infant
daughter, was suffering from severe insomnia caused by
joblessness and gambling debts. Early in the morning of May 23,
1987 he arose, got in his car and drove 23 kilometers to his in-laws'
home. He stabbed to death his mother-in-law, whom he loved
and who had once referred to him as "a gentle giant." Parks also
assaulted his father in law, who survived the attack. He then drove
to the police and said "I think I have killed some people . . . my
hands," only then realizing he had severely cut his own hands.
Under police arrest he was taken to the hospital where he
underwent repair of several flexor tendons of both hands.
Is Parks Guilty or Not Guilty?
 NOT Guilty
 Because he could not remember anything about the murder and
assault, had no motive for the crime whatsoever, and did have a
history of sleepwalking, his team of defense experts (psychiatrists, a
psychologist, a neurologist and a sleep specialist) concluded Ken
Parks was 'asleep' when he committed the crime, and therefore
unaware of his actions.
 Parks' sleepwalking defense proved successful and on May 25, 1988,
the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. Subsequently Parks was also
acquitted of the attempted murder of his father-in-law. The
government appealed the decision and in 1992 the Canadian
Supreme Court upheld the acquittals (R v. Parks, August 27, 1992).
Types of Offences
The nature of the offence determines which
court has jurisdiction to hear the case,
 the powers of police to arrest,
 the accused’s right to be released before
trial, and
 the kind of trial the accused receives.
Three Types of Offences
Summary Conviction Offences
Indictable Offences
Hybrid Offences
Summary Conviction
 These offences are the least serious and trials for these
convictions are held at the lower courts of the
Ontario Court of Justice.
 The accused does not have a right to a jury trial.
 Trials in these cases are held in front of a judge alone,
and sentencing for this type of offence ranges, with
the maximum penalty being a fine of up to $2000
and/or six months in jail, unless otherwise specified by
law.
Summary Conviction Cont…
 Usually a person is not arrested for a summary
offence, but will receive a notice to appear in court.
 The accused does not have to appear in court
personally. A lawyer may represent the person in the
court proceedings.
 A person cannot be fingerprinted for a summary
conviction offence and is eligible for a pardon three
years after the sentence is completed.
 Examples of summary offences include: causing a
public disturbance, loitering, and having open
alcohol in public.
Indictable Offences
 Indictable offences are more serious than summary
offences
 The procedure followed depends on the seriousness of
the offence.
 For less serious indictable offences, trials are done
before a provincial court judge, while the most serious
indictable offences, such as murder, must be tried by a
judge and jury.
 For some indictable offences, the accused is put to an
election between being tried by a provincial court
judge, a superior court judge alone, or a superior court
judge with a jury.
Indictable Offence Cont…
 A person charged with an indictable offence must
show up personally in court.
 There is no limit on how much time can elapse
between the alleged act and the arrest, which means
that police can charge the person years after the
offence occurred.
 The maximum penalty for indictable offences is life
imprisonment.
 Examples of indictable offences include: murder,
robbery, and kidnapping.
Hybrid Offences
 Hybrid offences are also known as “dual procedure
offences” and can be tried as either summary conviction
or indictable offences.
 The Crown chooses whether it wants to prosecute as a
summary or an indictable offence, usually depending
upon the circumstances of the incident, and factors
about the offender.
Hybrid Offences Con’t…
 Examples of hybrid offences include: impaired
driving, assault, theft under $5000, and failing to
provide the necessaries of life.
 Most offences in the Criminal Code are hybrid
offences. Hybrid offences are treated as
indictable offences until the Crown chooses
which way it wants to proceed. This means that
an accused will be fingerprinted on arrest, even
though it is possible that he will be tried for a
summary conviction offence.
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.
Repealed:
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.