FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 335 times | Saved to 309 briefcases
R v Bogue (1976), 30 CCC (2d) 403 168 (Ont Ca)


B and M fighting. B hit M on head. M died


Did trial judge misdirect the jury when he said that B should have only used no more force then necessary under s.34(2)? – YES - THIS WAS WRONG


Objective-Subjective test for self-defence under 34(1) and 34(2): It is not a standard of a person standing outside the defence – one has to take into account the state of mind of the accused
**Not proportionality requirement for 34(2) but there is in 34(1)


34(1) requires proportionality, and intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
34(2) when there is an intention, and requirement to proportionality, but must have reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm and a reasonable belief that he could not otherwise prevent himself from death or grievous bodily harm


In contradiction with Pawliuk

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.