Law Exam Review

Or the victim choosing not to have a blood transfusion? * Court Ruling * Guilty. Thin skull rule Those who use emphasis against others must take victims as they find them Blaue had to take the victim as a Jehovahs Witness * The defendant is not responsible if the victim dies as a result of an unrelated emergence If his actions led to the event, he is still guilty R v Hummel (Stare decisis- lower coquets must follow high courts) * Summary Judge Perkins did not follow a binding decision of a higher court (contravening the doctrine of stare decisis) * Perkins struck down a section of the criminal code, in favour of the defendant * The crown appealed, and judge Clements disagreed with Perkins, allowing the appeal * Shortly after, Perkins had another ssimilar case, and refused to follow Clements judgment. He one time again adopted his own reasoning as in the previous case. * intelligent rule * Decisions of a higher court must be followed because that is what holds common faithfu lness together.Their decisions are binding decisions * It doesnt offspring that Perkins could have been more intelligent than Clements * Rulings of higher courts bind lower courts R v Ladue (Does computer error counteract mens rea? ) * Summary * Woman at a party died from drinking too much alcohol * Forensics showed that Ladue had conjure with her after he died * He couldnt be charged with sexual assault because he was nonviable * He was charged with doing an indignity to a dead body * Used the defense that he did not be intimate she was dead, so he had no mens reaR v hissing and Bolduc (Doctor allowed friend to examine patient) * Summary * mendelevium told a female patient that his friend was a medical intern * she gave consent for the friend to prise a medical examination * The fraud was as to the identity of the onlooker, not as to the act, of which she knew and understood. * Legal lead * Was consent obtained fraudulently as to the nature and quality of the act? * Court Ruling * Bolduc did exactly what the victim understood he would do.There was no fraud on his part as to what he was going to do * Victim knew that Bird was present and consented to his presence * Innocent the fraud had nothing to do with the act, but with Birds identity * If he touched her, it would have turned into an assault R v Campbell and Mlynarchuk (Stripper case, mistake of police force) * Summary * Campbell was convicted of dancing naked * Previously, Alberta supreme court made dancing naked legal * Campbell did not know that the Court of attract overruled it * Legal Principle Mistake of fact is a defense to a criminal charge, mistake of law is not * Court Ruling * Campbells mistake was one of law She coincluded that the decision of the judge correctly stated the law, which it did not * Although this is not fair, it is necessary in order to check ignorance of the law as a defense * Out of the sense of justice, (naked dancing is not a common problem), Campbell got an abs olute discharge * Mistake of fact is a defense to a criminal charge, mistake of law is not R v Keegstra (Freedom of speech vs hate speech) * Summary Keegstra was a schoolteacher who taught his sstudents anti-Semitism and anticipate them to use his teachings on exams. If they didnt, their marks suffered * A few months after a parent complained, Mr. Keegstra was dismissed * Legal Principle * S. 319 bans promoting hatred against an identifiable group * Charter protects freedom of speech * Court Ruling * Court of Appeal states it was protected under s. 319 2(b), which protects innocent and imprudent speech (people who think that their hate speech is actually true) * bulk Failed the Oakes proportionality test.Hate propaganda contributes little to the quest for truth, or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy The intrusion was justified R v Rabey (Automatism) * Summary * Stabbed a woman after finding out that she doesnt like him * Used the defense of non- disturbed automati sm, stating that he had a blackout due to his rage (powerful emotional shock) * Legal Principle * Was his dissociative state due to a disease of the judgment? * Court Ruling * His automatism was insane * Ordinary stresses and disappointments of life do not explain the mind alfunctioning * Rabeys emotional stress from the misfires rejection is not reasonable It was due to his psychological or emotional make-up, thus constituting disease of the mind R v Ruzic (Duress) * Summary * Ruzic landed in Pearson airport with 2 kilos of heroin and a forge passport * She used the defense of duress, because a man in Serbia would kill her mother if she didnt heed to him