FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,047 times | Saved to 256 briefcases
Vaillancourt v Her Majesty The Queen, [1987] 2 SCR 636, 1987 SCC 78

Facts:

V and X committed armed robbery. They were only to bring knives. X brought gun. V made X takes bullets out. X ended up shooting someone. V believed gun was unloaded

Issue(s):

Can we construct a murder out of the situation, that V did not actually kill the man, but that while robbing him X killed him?

Ratio:

RATIO FROM THIS CASE - It is a PFJ that before that before a person could be convicted of murder there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least objective foreseeability of death (BUT THIS IS NO LONGER LAW)

DISSENT FROM THIS CASE (THIS IS NOW LAW): It is a PFJ that a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight.
**Crown must prove that the accused at least objectively foresaw that death would result

Analysis:

S.213(d) violates s.7 of the Charter bc it is not in accordance with PFJs bc it allows being convicted without the Crown proving at least objectively foresaw that death would result – if Crown proves this then it does not violate s.11(d)

Holding:

s.230(d) violated s.7 and s.11(D)

Comments:

Sections in the Criminal Code will violate s.11(d) – if it places the onus on D to disprove the offence, OR if Parliament creates an offence where they will presume a person has subjective foresight of death if the Crown proves a, b, c.

If an absolute liability offence from which the Crown need not prove a MR element and results in imprisonment or possibility of imprisonment it will violate that PFJs – Motor Vehicle Reference.

SUBJECTIVE FORESIGHT OF DEATH – is the MR for murder in Canada – comes from R v Martineau


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.