FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,291 times | Saved to 425 briefcases
R v Hibbert, [1995] 2 SCR. 973


H led B to C's apt. C was shot by B. H said he did it because he was scared he would be shot (B threatened to hurt H if he didn’t take him to C)


1. What is the proper meaning of purpose?

2. Does the safe avenue rule exist with respect to duress?

3. What is the meaning of purpose for the MR of s.21(1)?


(Issue 1) Intent does not require crown to prove that the accused desired the outcome.
**Desire is not relevant for the purpose of finding MR.

(Issue 1) A person who consciously performs an act knowing the consequences that will with some degree flow from it intends these consequences or causes them on purpose regardless of whether he or she desired them

(Issue 2) An accused person cannot rely on the defence of duress if they had an opportunity to safely extricate himself from the situation of duress.
**Have no safe avenue of escape if compliance with the law was demonstrably impossible
**When considering the perceptions of a reasonable person, particular circumstances and human frailties of the accused should be taken into account
***Makes it a modified objective standard

(Issue 3) Purpose means intent and intent does not include desire for the ulterior purpose to be brought about


In the context of s.21(1)(b) – purpose means intent

Threats are not capable of negating the MR for s.21(1).?Accused desire is not relevant to make out MR. Duress could not negate the fact that H meant to push the button and bring C down to get shot.?
**Duress will only negate certain kinds of MR – it is important to figure out what kinds of MR is involved in s.21(1)


(Issue 2) Duress could not negate the fact that H meant to push the button and bring C down to get shot

(Issue 3) H is guilty under s.21(1)


R v Dawson
**D charged with s.283 – taking a child with intention to deprive parent of possession
**What is the meaning of ‘with intent to deprive a parent or guardian’?
**Courts don’t always follow the rule in Lewis – here the concurring judge would require the Crown to prove motive – the rules aren’t always so simple!!

BUT: *Generally – evidence of motive is not relevant to intent (Lewis)**

This case gives us the MR for s.21(1) – Intention.?
Affirms Poitras – question is simply did he act knowing what he was doing was going to facilitate a sale.

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.