Excuses and Justifications Defences to a Charge Excuses and Justifications

Necessity and Duress ...did not have a genuine choice at the time they committed it...entrenched concept of classical criminology- we choose to act anti-social (now whether thats due to internal factors or external factors is where criminology comes in) Ruzic 2001- fundamental principle of justice that only voluntary conduct should attract the penalty and stigma of lability Excuses- Perka 1984- concedes the wrongfulness of the action but asserts that the circumstances dictate that the actions ought not to be attributed to the actor

Self Defence* Considered an excuse- an action that is justified despite it being a criminal act R. v. Ryan 2013- it challenges the wrongfulness of an action- the reason why the accused was justified in meeting force with force- hiring a hit man?

Back to Necessity An accused can only avoid disaster by breaking the law- Perka 1984 Choice must be voluntary and not compelled due to various reasons, including normal human instincts The accused must have no reasonable legal alternative but to break the law

Duress Accused assert that their power of choice is being overborne by another human being Hibbert 1995- normative involuntariness Section 17 of the Criminal Code original definition was struck down in 2001 (Ruzic) Main components of the defence are that the accused had been subjected to a threat of death or serious bodily harm (direct or indirect- child, spouse) The court has to be satisfied that a reasonable person*, placed in exactly the same situation as the accused, would act as they did

Ruzic Importing a narcotic and use of false passport- 2kg of heroin Ruzic admitted the offence but asserted that she did so under duress- Threatened, harassed and assaulted by a paramilitary man in the former Yugoslavia He ordered her to export the drugs and threatened to kill her mother- law and order had broken down hence no trust in the police at home Ruzic was acquitted by all court levels including SCC However….

Ryan Duress must results from a threat that is at the core of the defence of duress and cannot be raised when the issue is itself self defence….let me explain Victim/accused was the victim of a violent, abusive and controlling husband and counselled an RCMP undercover officer to kill the husband Therefore duress was not available to her due to the issue being for self defence (admitted the wrong but attempting a justification)- Duress is an excuse- The SCC ruled that the circumstances of her action cannot excuse her from the action, unlike in duress and necessity cases* Hmmm….

Self-Defence again Section 34 of the Criminal Code- reasonable amount of force in self defence, if you reasonably believe that they or another individual are the target of actual force/threat of force Section 34 factors- pg 86 SCC upholds the concept of applying whether the accused person’s conduct was reasonable Women in domestic violence cases are judged by the standards of reasonable women who face the same circumstances and not by the reasonableness of women fighting in a bar R. v. Lavalee Then why not Ryan?