APPLICATION /10 Test: Chapter 4 and 5 - Specific Offences and Defences

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "APPLICATION /10 Test: Chapter 4 and 5 - Specific Offences and Defences"

Logan Wilkinson
6 years ago
Views:

1 Name: KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING /41 THINKING AND INQUIRY /20 APPLICATION /10 Test: Chapter 4 and 5 - Specific Offences and Defences KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (40 MARKS) Part A: True and False (12) 1) Ignorance of the law can be a defense in some cases. 2) Watching someone get mugged, but doing nothing about it (like on Seinfeld) is not a crime. 3) Abortion can be classified as homicide. 4) Someone can be convicted of assault without actually inflicting bodily harm on another person. 5) If two people get into a heated argument and by accident one of them gets pushed into a brick wall and dies from this head injury, the person who accidentally pushed the other one is still guilty of murder. 6) It is against the law both to commit suicide and to perform euthanasia. 7) If a person says that they would not have done a crime if they were not drunk, this can be used as a defence. 8) In order to use the defence of Duress, there must be threat of immediate death or injury to your family. 9) If a trespasser enters a home in the middle of the night and attempts only to steal expensive paintings, the homeowner may not shoot him to stop him from leaving with the priceless art. 10) The defence of Self-Defence states that it is alright for someone who is being attacked to use force to protect him/herself, but it is not alright to over-react. 11) Elaine beat up Kramer and told the court that he provoked her into beating him up. Elaine could successfully use the defence of Provocation to exonerate her of the crime. 12) Mr. Costanza fell on a pasta figurine and Kramer (who was drinking with Newman) got into a car and drove him to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, Kramer was pulled over and charged with Impaired Driving. Kramer would be successful using the defence of Necessity. 1

2 Part B: Matching (13 marks) 1) Deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk. 2) Failure to act when the law requires us to do so is also an example of this. 3) If this offence has been committed, then you must tell the authorities regardless of your involvement, or you are guilty of being an accessory. 4) A person that obtains entrance to a building through Possession of a stolen key is guilty of this. 5) Murder requires this to be specific, while manslaughter requires this to be general 6) The test that decides whether or not the defence of Double Jeopardy can be used. 7) Involuntary behaviour, where the mind does not know what is being done. 8) You cannot use this type of force in self-defence. 9) Already acquitted of this offence. 10) A threat against property is not enough, the threat must be against a person - to use this defence. 11) When the accused feels that they have no other courses of action. 12) Method of charging the accused, with the hopes that one charge may stick. 13) The only purpose of this defence is to reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter. WORDS: Autrefois Aquit Autrefois Convict Necessity Shotgun Rifle Provocation Self-Defence Reasonable Excessive Unordinary Ordinary Constructive Duress Intent Mens Rea Break and Entry Trespass Treason Negligent Substantial Identity Insane Automatism Non_Insane Automatism Automatism Insanity Res Judicata 2

3 Part C: Long Answer (16 marks) Please read the questions below carefully and answer in the space below. 1) Define the reverse onus clause and give an example of an offence where this clause is used. (4 marks) 2) Describe in detail the difference between theft and robbery. (4 marks) 3) State the 3 Elements of Necessity and give an example where this defence may be used. (4 marks) 4) Explain why the defence may want to use the defence of insanity. Explain why the Crown may want to use the defence of insanity. What would the difference in their reasoning be? (4 marks) 3

4 THINKING AND INQUIRY (20 MARKS TOTAL) APPLICATION (10 MARKS TOTAL) Part D: Case Analysis (10 mark; 20 total) Read the Case below and on a separate piece of paper, analyze the Case using the following criteria: 1) Identify the parties involved and summarize the circumstances (relationship). 2) Isolate the issue (what is crime, where do all parties stand). 3) Discuss all legal issues by evaluation of prosecutor s and defense s case. 4) Based on your legal expertise, describe what you feel the results of the case should be. SMITHERS V. THE QUEEN Supreme Court of Canada, 1978 The appellant and his victim, Cobby, were playing in a midget league hockey game on opposite teams. It was a violent game marked by many fights. Cobby taunted Smithers, who is black, with racial insults. Both boys were repeatedly evicted from the game. Smithers had repeatedly told Cobby that he would get him. Cobby waited for 45 minutes after the game was over before leaving the arena, demonstrating a clear fear of Smithers who was physically much larger than Cobby. When Cobby came out, accompanied by several teammates, Smithers was waiting and immediately charged into Cobby. Smithers landed one solid punch before the other boys were able to intercede, trying to prevent further fighting. Several boys were able to hold Smithers arms, but he was still quite close to Cobby. He managed to kick Cobby in the stomach. The victim collapsed, gasped for air and died within minutes. The autopsy revealed no damage to the deceased s major organs. The cause of death was asphyxiation. The kick had caused the victim to suddenly vomit, but instead of the stomach matter coming up into the mouth, much of it went into the lungs. The victim s epiglottis had, for some unknown reason, malfunctioned. There had been no previous history of unexplained vomiting. Smithers was convicted of manslaughter and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction. R V. Mack (1989) SCC 67C.R. (3d) 1 4

5 Answer Key True and False 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Matching 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 5

ASSISTED BY / BYGESTAAN DEUR FRANCOIS DE KOCK

1 JUAN KOTZE ATTORNEYS /PROKUREURS ASSISTED BY / BYGESTAAN DEUR FRANCOIS DE KOCK 1st FLOOR/VLOER P.O. BOX / POSBUS 1314 IVH CENTRE / SENTRUM BOKSBURG 1460 LEEUWPOORTSTRAAT 142 LEEUWPOORT STREET TEL: (011)