FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,240 times | Saved to 291 briefcases
R v Martineau, [1990] 2 SCR 633


M and X set out to do what M thought was a B&E. They robbed J and X killed J


Does s.213(a) 230(a) infringe or deny the rights or freedoms guaranteed by s.7 or s.11(d)?


It is a PFJ that a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight


Majority: The rationale for subjective foresight of death is linked to the general principle that criminal liability for a particular result is not justified except where the actor possesses a culpable mental state in respect of that result
**Proportionality between the stigma and punishment attached to a murder conviction and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Dissent: The question is not what is the best test, but what is the constitutionally valid one? – The answer is objective foresight
**The test of objective foresight of death for the crime of murder does not offend PFJ


This section unduly impairs the Charter rights – it is not saved by s.1

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.