FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,841 times | Saved to 444 briefcases
R v Duong, 1998 CanLII 3585 (ON CA)


2 people killed. Reports on tv that L did it. D let L stay with him after seeing the broadcasts. D said he didn’t want to know what L did so he never asked


Does s.23(1) require proof that the accused knew or was willfully blind to the fact that L committed a murder, or just that he had committed some unlawful act?


Where the Crown proves the existence of a fact in issue and knowledge of that fact is a component of the MR of the crime charged, willful blindness as to the existence of the fact is sufficient to establish a culpable state of mind


R v Vinette (1974) - The accused had to know that L had committed murder or been party to a murder – not just an unlawful offence to be convicted of accessory after the fact to homicide.

A charge laid under s.23(1) must allege the commission of a specific offence and the Crown must prove that the alleged accessory knew that the person assisted was a party to that offence.

It is no defence for D to say that had I asked him he wouldn’t have told me he killed someone


Willful blindness under s.23(1) can fulfill the MR requirement of knowledge

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.