Pure Comparative Negligence Rule Most times in self-defense, the accused puts across a countercharge against the accuser on one or more grounds. In such exceptional cases, the ‘pure comparative negligence rule’ is applied. Under this rule, the fault(s) of both the accuser are also taken into account in detail. A comparative analysis is conducted, wherein the fault(s) of both parties are compared along with submitted proof(s) to reach a conclusion.
The defence will raise the inconsistencies created by Jame’s statement that the attacker spoke of “Phil” yet there is no evidence that there was any connection between Philip and Ian. There is no evidence that directly connects Ian to the attack itself nor any connection of his screwdriver to the attack weapon. Did Ian intend to cause grievous bodily harm? The prosecution theory of a burglary-gone-wrong and thus intent formulating out of surprise and panic is very circumstantial, placing heavy reliance on impaired judgement caused by synthetic cannabis.
In R v. Frieson, Judge Ouellette referred to 5 cases and 2 statutes outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2 statutes from the Constitution Act, and 12 statues from the Criminal Code. The issue with this particular case laid in the fact that Frieson believed the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for this offence constituted as cruel and unusual punishment; the defendant was not aware of Mr. Froese’s depression when he sold him both firearms. Despite only having a license to sell non-prohibited firearm ammunition at the time, Friesen cooperated with investigators and was honest about continuing to sell firearms from his store despite not having a license, even after Mr. Froese’s death. Judge Oulette was
Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. So the court decided that, the defendant was not
Section 38 – Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 s.38(1) states that a person commits an offence if (a) they behave in a threatening or abusive manner, the threatening or abusive manner in question within this case is the behaviour displayed by Mr Baig towards the parking attendant, this holds relevance to the actus of reus of Mr Baig as did behave in such a manner as to cause fear to the parking attendants, this fear coincides with another rule stated under Section 38 of the CJLSA 2010 which is (b) the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, the behaviour ( actus reus) shown by Mr Baig as previously stated was enough to cause fear and extreme discomfort. (c) which is intending by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm relates as the mens rea of Mr Baig within case was his recklessness in not ensuring his behaviour would cause (P) considerable alarm and distress. The main crux under section 38 is that all that was needed to commit the offence was the fear and distress felt by (P), unlike breach of the peace it need not be a public
Clarence Earl Gideon is a simple 8th grade education type of man, who lives in a hotel across the street of a pool bar place in the state of Florida. One day after getting a taxi to go to a bar, Mr. Gideon was falsely accused of breaking into the pool bar and stealing some money. The police picked Clarence up and brought him to court. The day of the court trial, Mr. Gideon had brought up the Constitutional issue of Amendment 6, which is to give the defendant an attorney.
A crime must also require an aspect of voluntariness for the act to be considered valid (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 48). In Martineau (1990) the Supreme Court ruled that S.7 of the Charter requires the “subjective foresight of the likelihood of death” as the minimum mens rea requirement for murder (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p.76). The case of Lucki (1955) solidified the fact that if a crime results from something that is outside of the hands of the accused they cannot be
In this case, Don Streater and Albert Hunt were driving on the opposite sides. The accident was occurred, but luckily, nobody was killed. However, Streater was heavily injuries. The cost of medical was approximately one hundred thousand dollars. Streater sued Hunt because Hunt was the reason that caused accident.
The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
It is the outline of the mental pattern which is necessary to do the crime. At times criminal intent is used in the sense of mens rea-the mental element requisite for guilt of the offense charged. Knowledge; the law can presume knowledge of facts under the doctrine of notice where a person would have known if he had made proper enquiries. Recklessness must be judged under two scenarios firstly was the risk taken unjustifiable, secondly it may sometimes be seen to be justifiable on the basis of social utility, circumstances must be taken into consideration. The question is as to whether the recklessness in question shall be judged subjectively or objectively.
In all areas of law reasonableness tends to play a fundamental role including reasonably foreseeability, the reasonable man, beyond reasonable doubt and reasonable force to name a few. The concept of reasonableness in public decision making is no different and has developed, expanded and retracted in various jurisdictions over the past century. In public decision making, reasonableness particularly relates to judicial review, and the actions, events or otherwise which lead a public body to arrive at a particular decision rather the decision itself. It is of great importance that reasonableness is applied to public bodies in order to control the exercise of power and to prevent arbitrary and unfair decisions. In this essay, we will examine
In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was novus actus interveniens, or remoteness of consequences, i.e., the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the defendant’s servants was the remote cause. It was held that the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw stones on them, because such a mischief on the part of the children was anticipated. “It is not true to say that where the plaintiff has
The term reckless was first created to deal with, (which is now rather an archaic term malicious used to be prevalent in many statutes in the nineteenth century, such as the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. One of the first cases to use the term reckless, was that of R v Pembliton (1874) , in which the defendant was charged with the offence of
Butterfield was riding at fast at dusk and did not see the shaft. He hit the shaft and endured individual wounds. The court held that Butterfield was contributorily careless on the grounds that on the off chance that he had been utilizing conventional consideration he would have possessed the capacity to see and keep away from the check. Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co.
