Reasonable Person Test: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m 1 revision imported
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
{{HeaderCrimLaw}}
{{HeaderCrimLaw}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
<!-- -->
The "reasonable person test" is standard to be applied when considering a number of offences:
The "reasonable person test" is standard to be applied when considering a number of offences:
* [[Uttering Threats (Offence)]]
* [[Uttering Threats (Offence)]]
Line 13: Line 12:
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 S. (R.D.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr05 1997 CanLII 324] (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (S.C.C)</ref>
R v RDS, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr05 1997 CanLII 324] (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (S.C.C){{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>
S. (R.D.)<br>
RDS{{ibid}}<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 (S.C.C.), at p. 282<br>
R v Collins, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (S.C.C.){{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), at para 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 para 71<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 26: 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) 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), at para 43
R v Richter, [http://canlii.ca/t/g7wk0 2014 BCCA 244] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Willcock JA}}, at para 43
</ref>
</ref>


Line 38: Line 37:
==See Also==
==See Also==
* [[Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter]] - requiring consideration of the "reasonable person"
* [[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 st the offence from a reasonable person perspective
* [[Aggravating and Mitigating Factors#Prohibited Factors]] - much of sentencing is guided by the judge looking at the offence from a reasonable person perspective

Revision as of 21:14, 22 November 2018

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 (S.C.C), per Cory J
  2. RDS, ibid.
  3. R v Collins, 1987 CanLII 84 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (S.C.C.), 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]

  1. R v Tran, 2010 SCC 58 (CanLII), per Charron J at para 35
  2. R v Richter, 2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII), per Willcock JA, at para 43

See Also