Accident and Mistake: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\} at p\. ([0-9][0-9][0-9])\<" to "}{{atp|$1}}<" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
; Burden | ; 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. <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}} | 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}}{{atps|497-498}}</ref> | ||
; General or Specific Intent Offences | ; General or Specific Intent Offences | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 14 February 2019
- < 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
Mathisen, supra, at para 70