Defences For the Accused Defence: A denial of, or a justification for, criminal behaviour

Denial I didn’t do it! If accepted, this defence represents the absence of actus reus and the accused would be acquitted.

Mental States Is the accused “fit to stand trial”? Will they understand the nature of the trial, the consequences? Will they be able to instruct counsel?

Mental States Can the accused be held criminally responsible for the offence?

Mental State Defence: Mental Disorder Mental Disorder: defined in the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind” An accused person suffering from a mental disorder at the time an offence is committed cannot be held criminally responsible because he or she is unable to form the mens rea of the offence

Mental State Defence: Mental Disorder An accused is assumed NOT to have a mental disorder until the contrary is proven The “burden of proof” is on whoever first raises the issue (usually the defence) – they must prove that there is a greater likelihood that the accused did suffer from a mental disorder than that he or she did not (different from reasonable doubt)

Mental State Defence: Mental Disorder To use the defence of mental disorder, one of the following must be met: Accused is incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act. Accused in incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong. Textbook Support: p.288 (N) or p.252 (O)

Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder – Then What? Absolute Discharge Conditional Discharge Term in a psychiatric hospital (reviewed after a max. of 90 days)

Mental State Defence: Automatism Automatism: a condition in which a person acts without being aware of what he or she is doing Can happen during sleepwalking, after a severe concussion, or when misusing medication. Negates the actus reus of the crime because the person was not acting voluntarily Look it up on http://www.canlii.org/en/: R. v. Parks [1992]

Mental State Defence: Intoxication Intoxication: The condition of being overpowered by alcohol or drugs to the point of losing self-control. Generally a person who gets drunk and commits a criminal offence IS still RESPONSIBLE for their actions There are some exceptions…

Mental State Defence: Intoxication Intoxication may be a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not to those of general intent. Example – murder is a specific intent offence, but manslaughter is a general intent offence.

Mental State Defence: Intoxication In very rare cases intoxication can be used as a defence against specific intent offences if the intoxication was so extreme that is almost amounts to a mental disorder. THINK ABOUT IT What offence would you never be able to use the defence of intoxication for?

Justifications In some situations an accused is exonerated from committing an apparently criminal act because the circumstances justified or excused his or her conduct.

Justifications Self-Defence: the use of reasonable force to defend against an attack Battered Woman Syndrome: the effects of prolonged spousal abuse (used to advance the justification of self-defence)

Justifications Defence of a Dwelling: You are permitted to defend your dwelling against unlawful entry and to remove a trespasser using reasonable force under the circumstances A trespasser who resists the owner’s attempts to protect the dwelling is considered to be committing an assault and then self-defence provisions would apply.

Textbook Support: p.296 (N) or p.259-260 (O) Justifications Necessity: a defence stating that the accused had no reasonable alternative to committing an illegal act Textbook Support: p.296 (N) or p.259-260 (O)

Textbook Support: p.297 (N) or p.262 (O) Justifications Compulsion or Duress: A defence in which the accused person is forced by the threat of violence to commit a criminal act against his or her will Textbook Support: p.297 (N) or p.262 (O)

Justifications Provocation: words or actions that are insulting enough to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control Applies ONLY to the crime of murder – reduces the conviction from murder to manslaughter THINK ABOUT IT See p.299 (N) or p.262 (O) then decide if manslaughter could have been an appropriate defence in the case of R. v. Beancounter

Justifications Aboriginal or Treaty Rights There are times when Aboriginal people may argue that they have an Aboriginal or treaty right to act in a way that would be illegal for anyone else. Most cases that use this justification deal with hunting and fishing rights.

Other Defences Mistakes of Fact and Law: see p.304 (N) or 265-266 (O) Alibi: a defence raised by the accused claiming that he or she was somewhere else when the offence was committed (burden is on the Crown to prove otherwise)

Textbook Support: p.305 (N) or p.268 (O) Other Defences Double Jeopardy: the legal doctrine that an accused person cannot be tried twice for the same offence (not the same as an appeal) Entrapment: a defence against police conduct that illegally induces the defendant to commit a criminal act Textbook Support: p.305 (N) or p.268 (O)

Look at Cases!