Reasonable Person Test: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | 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> | ||
{{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> | ||
{{ibid1|RDS}}<br> | {{ibid1|RDS}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref> | * dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Collins|1ftnd|1987 CanLII 84 (SCC)|, [1987] 1 SCR 265 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atp|282}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Burlingham|1frk6|1995 CanLII 88 (SCC)|, [1995] 2 SCR 206 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1frk6|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> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Tran|2dk6j|2010 SCC 58 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|2dk6j|35}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Diminished Intelligence | ; 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> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Richter|g7wk0|2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Willcock JA}}{{atL|g7wk0|43}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 10:27, 30 November 2020
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 Detention
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 (SCC), 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 (SCC), 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