FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,066 times | Saved to 332 briefcases
R v Pétel, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3

Facts:

P charged w 2nd degree murder. P wanted E to leave house, but E kept going there and dealing drugs. P, after having some drugs, shot at E. R lunged at her so she shot R. R died. E lived

Issue(s):

Was trial judge correct that only those acts that had taken place on the evening of the crime were relevant to determining the reasonableness? – NO

Ratio:

Past experience can be relevant when assessing whether someone is a serious threat to you or not.
**Can use subjective requirements to give meaning to imminence requirement.
The issue is not what an outsider would have reasonably perceived but what the accused reasonably perceived, given her situation and her experience.

Analysis:

The threats by E during the time he lived with P are relevant in determining whether the respondent had a reasonable apprehension of danger and reasonable belief in the need to kill E.
The question to ask is not ‘was the accused unlawfully assaulted?’ but is “did the accused reasonable believe, in the circumstances, that she was being unlawfully assaulted?’


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.