FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 745 times | Saved to 303 briefcases
R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746


K charged with impaired driving. Was at dentist gave him drug/didn’t know would affect him


Whether the accused’s lack of knowledge of the effects to the drug would affect his liability for impaired driving – does it mean lack of knowledge was voluntary?


Criminal liability requires voluntary act – knowledge important for voluntariness of actus reus
**Accused must have a willing mind and at liberty to make a choice – if not, then not voluntary


There can be no actus reus unless it is the result of a willing mind at liberty to make a definite choice or decision. There must be willpower to do an act


Appellant became impaired through no act of his own – not guilty

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.