Reasonable Person Test: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(S.C.C.)" to "(SCC)" |
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
</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> | ''R v Collins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer J}}, at p. 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> | ''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> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==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> | ''R v Tran'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dk6j 2010 SCC 58] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 35<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
'''Diminished Intelligence'''<br> | '''Diminished Intelligence'''<br> | ||
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 | ''R v Richter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7wk0 2014 BCCA 244] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Willcock JA}}, at para 43 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 13:11, 13 January 2019
General Principles
The "reasonable person test" is standard to be applied when considering a number of offences:
- Uttering Threats (Offence)
- Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (Offence)
- Robbery (Offence)
- Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
- Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter
- Grounds for Release
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]
- ↑ R v RDS, 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (S.C.C), per Cory J
- ↑
RDS, ibid.
- ↑
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 (S.C.C), per Iacobucci J, at para 71
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]
- ↑
R v Tran, 2010 SCC 58 (CanLII), per Charron J at para 35
- ↑ R v Richter, 2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII), per Willcock JA, at para 43
See Also
- Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter - requiring consideration of the "reasonable person"
- Aggravating and Mitigating Factors#Prohibited Factors - much of sentencing is guided by the judge looking at the offence from a reasonable person perspective