Reasonable Person Test: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
m Text replacement - "".<" to "."<"
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
* [[Reasonable Apprehension of Bias]]
* [[Reasonable Apprehension of Bias]]
* [[Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter]]
* [[Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter]]
* [[Grounds for Release]]
* [[Grounds for Detention]]


A reasonable person is one who is:
A reasonable person is one who is:
* "reasonable, informed, practical and realistic" who "consider the matter in some detail"<ref>
* "reasonable, informed, practical and realistic" who "consider the matter in some detail"<ref>
''R v RDS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr05 1997 CanLII 324] (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (S.C.C){{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RDS|1fr05|1997 CanLII 324 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 484 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>
* the person is not a "very sensitive or scrupulous" person, but is "right-minded"<ref>
* the person is not a "very sensitive or scrupulous" person, but is "right-minded"<ref>
RDS{{ibid}}<br>
{{ibid1|RDS}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
* dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref>
* dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref>
''R v Collins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer J}}, at p. 282<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Collins|1ftnd|1987 CanLII 84 (SCC)|[1987] 1 SCR 265 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atp|282}}<br>
''R v Burlingham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 (S.C.C){{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{at|71}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Burlingham|1frk6|1995 CanLII 88 (SCC)|[1995] 2 SCR 206 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1frk6|71}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
==="The Public"===
A similar style of test applied in criminal law concern an assessment of the opinion of the "public" of the potential disposition. Those include:
* [[Grounds for Detention|Bail - Tertiary grounds]]
* [[Cruel and Unusual Punishment|Cruel and Unusual Punishment]]


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 25: Line 31:
==Context-Based Reasonableness==
==Context-Based Reasonableness==
There is a difference between "contextualizing" an objective standard and individualizing the standard to suit the accused.<ref>
There is a difference between "contextualizing" an objective standard and individualizing the standard to suit the accused.<ref>
''R v Tran'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dk6j 2010 SCC 58] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 35<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Tran|2dk6j|2010 SCC 58 (CanLII)|[2010] 3 SCR 350}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|2dk6j|35}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


'''Diminished Intelligence'''<br>
; Diminished Intelligence
A diminished level of intelligence or diminished mental capacity can be taking into account in "the application of the reasonableness standard in criminal cases".<ref>
A diminished level of intelligence or diminished mental capacity can be taking into account in "the application of the reasonableness standard in criminal cases."<ref>
''R v Richter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7wk0 2014 BCCA 244] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Willcock JA}}, at para 43
{{CanLIIRP|Richter|g7wk0|2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII)|314 CCC (3d) 543}}{{perBCCA|Willcock JA}}{{atL|g7wk0|43}}
</ref>
</ref>



Latest revision as of 15:46, 6 January 2024

General Principles

The "reasonable person test" is standard to be applied when considering a number of offences:

A reasonable person is one who is:

  • "reasonable, informed, practical and realistic" who "consider the matter in some detail"[1]
  • the person is not a "very sensitive or scrupulous" person, but is "right-minded"[2]
  • dispassionate and fully apprised of the case[3]
  1. R v RDS, 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (SCC), per Cory J
  2. RDS, ibid.
  3. R v Collins, 1987 CanLII 84 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (SCC), per Lamer J, at p. 282
    R v Burlingham, 1995 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 (SCC), per Iacobucci J, at para 71

"The Public"

A similar style of test applied in criminal law concern an assessment of the opinion of the "public" of the potential disposition. Those include:

Context-Based Reasonableness

There is a difference between "contextualizing" an objective standard and individualizing the standard to suit the accused.[1]

Diminished Intelligence

A diminished level of intelligence or diminished mental capacity can be taking into account in "the application of the reasonableness standard in criminal cases."[2]

  1. R v Tran, 2010 SCC 58 (CanLII), [2010] 3 SCR 350, per Charron J, at para 35
  2. R v Richter, 2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII), 314 CCC (3d) 543, per Willcock JA, at para 43

See Also