Accident and Mistake: Difference between revisions
m 1 revision imported |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{HeaderDefences}} | {{HeaderDefences}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
The defences of accident or mistake will have different meaning depending on the context. | The defences of accident or mistake will have different meaning depending on the context. | ||
Generally, an accident is a "mishap or untoward event not expected or designed", or "unforeseen contingency or occurrence".<ref> | Generally, an accident is a "mishap or untoward event not expected or designed", or "unforeseen contingency or occurrence".<ref> | ||
R v Whitehorne [http://canlii.ca/t/1lp2r 2005 CanLII 34553] (NLPC)<br> | R v Whitehorne [http://canlii.ca/t/1lp2r 2005 CanLII 34553] (NLPC){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br> | ||
R v Hill, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzh 1973 CanLII 36], [1975] 2 SCR 402, (1974) 14 CCC (2d) 505 (SCC) at p. 510</ref> | R v Hill, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzh 1973 CanLII 36], [1975] 2 SCR 402, (1974) 14 CCC (2d) 505 (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}} at p. 510</ref> | ||
Most typically accident means that the accused did not mean to perform the ''actus reus'' or that the consequences of the ''actus reus'' were unintended.<ref> | Most typically accident means that the accused did not mean to perform the ''actus reus'' or that the consequences of the ''actus reus'' were unintended.<ref> | ||
R v Tatton, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6g9d 2014 ONCA 273] (CanLII), at para 24<br> | R v Tatton, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6g9d 2014 ONCA 273] (CanLII){{perONCA|Pardu JA}}, at para 24<br> | ||
R v Mathisen, [http://canlii.ca/t/21dw7 2008 ONCA 747] (CanLII), 239 CCC (3d) 63, at para 70<br> | R v Mathisen, [http://canlii.ca/t/21dw7 2008 ONCA 747] (CanLII), 239 CCC (3d) 63{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}, at para 70<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
'''Burden'''<Br> | '''Burden'''<Br> | ||
Once the accused establishes there is an "air of reality" to the defence of accident or mistake, the crown must disprove the availability of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. <ref>R v Sutherland, [http://canlii.ca/t/20t70 1993 CanLII 6614] (SK CA), (1994) 84 CCC (3d) 484 (Sask. C.A.) | Once the accused establishes there is an "air of reality" to the defence of accident or mistake, the crown must disprove the availability of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. <ref>R v Sutherland, [http://canlii.ca/t/20t70 1993 CanLII 6614] (SK CA), (1994) 84 CCC (3d) 484 (Sask. C.A.){{perSKCA|Vanscise JA}}, at pp. 497-498</ref> | ||
'''General or Specific Intent Offences'''<br> | '''General or Specific Intent Offences'''<br> | ||
The meaning of accident varies depending on the type of charge.<Ref>see [[Intention#Specific and General Intent]]</ref> Where it is a specific intent offence, an accident relates to a denial of voluntariness of the act or denial of intention to cause the outcome. For a general intent offence, an accident requires that the act was unexpected and by chance that was not foreseeable. <ref> | The meaning of accident varies depending on the type of charge.<Ref>see [[Intention#Specific and General Intent]]</ref> Where it is a specific intent offence, an accident relates to a denial of voluntariness of the act or denial of intention to cause the outcome. For a general intent offence, an accident requires that the act was unexpected and by chance that was not foreseeable. <ref> | ||
Criminal Pleading & Practice, Ewaschuck, (2nd Edition) at para 21.0030<br> | Criminal Pleading & Practice, Ewaschuck, (2nd Edition) at para 21.0030<br> | ||
R v Mathisen, [http://canlii.ca/t/21dw7 2008 ONCA 747] (CanLII) at para 70</ref> | R v Mathisen, [http://canlii.ca/t/21dw7 2008 ONCA 747] (CanLII){{perONCA|Laskin JA}} at para 70</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 19:15, 5 November 2018
- < Criminal Law
- < Defences
General Principles
The defences of accident or mistake will have different meaning depending on the context.
Generally, an accident is a "mishap or untoward event not expected or designed", or "unforeseen contingency or occurrence".[1]
Most typically accident means that the accused did not mean to perform the actus reus or that the consequences of the actus reus were unintended.[2]
The effect in law is that the mens rea is not present. This is distinctive from mistake which occurs in “the realm of perception”.[3]
Burden
Once the accused establishes there is an "air of reality" to the defence of accident or mistake, the crown must disprove the availability of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. [4]
General or Specific Intent Offences
The meaning of accident varies depending on the type of charge.[5] Where it is a specific intent offence, an accident relates to a denial of voluntariness of the act or denial of intention to cause the outcome. For a general intent offence, an accident requires that the act was unexpected and by chance that was not foreseeable. [6]
- ↑
R v Whitehorne 2005 CanLII 34553 (NLPC), per Gorman J
R v Hill, 1973 CanLII 36, [1975] 2 SCR 402, (1974) 14 CCC (2d) 505 (SCC), per Dickson J at p. 510 - ↑
R v Tatton, 2014 ONCA 273 (CanLII), per Pardu JA, at para 24
R v Mathisen, 2008 ONCA 747 (CanLII), 239 CCC (3d) 63, per Laskin JA, at para 70
- ↑ Whitehorne, supra
- ↑ R v Sutherland, 1993 CanLII 6614 (SK CA), (1994) 84 CCC (3d) 484 (Sask. C.A.), per Vanscise JA, at pp. 497-498
- ↑ see Intention#Specific and General Intent
- ↑
Criminal Pleading & Practice, Ewaschuck, (2nd Edition) at para 21.0030
R v Mathisen, 2008 ONCA 747 (CanLII), per Laskin JA at para 70