Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
+ possible recommendation of a case study of actus reus in criminal law
Drunk driving canada research essay
Drunk driving canada research essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In some cases the Crown does not have to prove that the accused was conducting the act, the Crown only has to prove that the accused was found in a particular state or condition (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 29). The accused being in control of a motor vehicle while being impaired is one of these cases (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 29). If the impairment no matter how slight is proven by evidence then the offence must go through (Stellate, 1993). In this particular case the defendant, Codlin was found behind the wheel of his car while being impaired (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 49). The breathalyzer test proving that Codlin’s blood alcohol was over eighty (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 49) which satisfied the first element of actus reus under section 253 (1) of the …show more content…
49) so it can be argued that the next element of actus reus was not fulfilled as he did not have control over the vehicle. The intention to set the vehicle in motion can create the risk of danger to persons or property because of this intention is considered by the court (R. v. Boudreault, 2012). Since the keys to the motor vehicle were in the pocket of the accused, it is clear that the accused did not have the intention to set the vehicle in motion. With this the accused established that the purpose of sitting in the driver’s seat was not to set the vehicle in motion which satisfies section 258 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Since the keys were in the pocket of the accused there was no risk of him accidently operating the vehicle, and there was only a slight risk of the accused trying to intentionally operate the vehicle that could be argued against …show more content…
If the driver is intoxicated sitting behind the wheel of their vehicle with the intention of setting the vehicle in motion once they decided they are no longer impaired, they pose a realistic risk to persons and property. This precedent was first set in Hatfield (1997) when the appellant’s argument that at the moment his only intention was to sleep. This logic was used next in the Coleman (2012) case when the accused had the intention to put the car into motion once he felt better after taking a short nap. In the case of Codlin an alternative plan had been implemented as well as the keys had been removed from the ignition. This showed that he had no intention of setting the vehicle in motion even if he decided he no longer felt
The respondent (driver) is required to take reasonable care when operating his vehicle to ensure the safety of the appellant. The primary judge highlighted that "content of this duty depends on the circumstances of the case". However, the respondent breached his duty of care by taking his eyes off the road, violating s 5B and s 5C of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002. The respondent nevertheless is not considered negligent as outlined in s5B (1) if he could prevent the outcome of a risk that was not
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
PURPOSE: To persuade my audience NOT to drink and drive Every person is accountable for his or her own “right to drink”. Failure to treat this or any “right” responsibly has consequences. The person’s “right” can and should be taken away when the failure to act responsibly endangers others.
“Every year, in the United States about 600,000 and ten percent-of all motor vehicle crashes recorded by police department are all due to consumption of alcohol.” In 2003; 42,643 fatalities were caused by vehicle crashes. Of those, 17,013 (40 percent) were alcohol related. The majority people with DUI’s are not alcoholics. “Beer drinking causes about 80 percent of alcohol-related fatalities.” A crash is alcohol related if any driver, pedestrian or passenger involved has any trace of alcohol or there is suspicion of alcohol usage. As the cases of drunk driving quickly increase over a period of time as one of the fast developing public problem, more definite and stricter regulations should be emphasized on books and in the academic world to control such recurring drunk driving offenses.
Driving under the influence is one of the most common and dangerous situations in which anyone can be or be placed. Drinking and driving is a serious offence that can cause someone to be physically harm or even killed. Not only are you putting yourself at risk but you are also risking the lives of passengers in the car as well as any other car and occupants sharing the road with you. Many people believe that increasing fines for drunk driving offenders will play a compelling role in cutting down the occurrences of driving under the influence. However, while harsher DUI laws will look effective on paper, they will not make a significant step in the fight against drunk driving. Although there is a law enforced for drinking and driving in the
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System
This case found the law had taken a wrong turn and hence removed JEL. This meant liability as an accomplice requires intention to aid or encourage, with foresight merely acting as evidence of this intention. This case also established that recklessness, as raised within Carter v. Richardson , is not sufficient for the mens rea of accomplice liability. Knowledge or foresight of the offence committed is required for liability. Had this case occurred prior to Jogee the judgement in 2016, where JEL was still alive, the outcome of Selma’s secondary liability following Pauls rape of Victoria could be determined differently, although arguably would not be ultimately
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Each year people die or are severely injured from drunk driving. “Each year 4,700 teens die as a result of underage drinking before the age of 21,” (Copeland, Larry. “Parents”). The consequences of drinking and driving can possibly be loss of life, not just the driver but others in the car. Drunk driving is not worth risking the possibility of huge fines. If someone is killed with the driver, driving under the influence there’s a possibility of life in prison for the driver. The good news is that drunk driving can be prevented with a simple phone call or a quick discussion with friends before the night of drinking begins. It is by setting a designated driver. From 2011 to 2012 highway deaths that involved drunk drivers rose 4.6 percent. It numbered 10,322 according to Federal Stats, (Rubinkam 1). The danger of drunk driving is far too high to even think of driving under the influence yet as the stats show people still are doing it. The stat shows that the number of drunk drivers in an accident rose 4.6 percent, which means more and more people are choosing to drive under the influence. The evidence shows that people are willing to risk their lives and the lives of others by driving under the influence. Yet it is as simple...
In this day and age, drunk driving has a reputation and stigma unlike it did one hundred years ago, when motor vehicles were first introduced to the mass consumer market. The end of prohibition, invention of the breathalyzer, advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and other historical events helped shape the public’s view of driving under the influence. By the early 1900s, motor vehicle accidents became problematic in the United States as alcohol related incidents began to be identified as a contributing factor to motor vehicle accidents. In 1904, the American Association for the Study and Cure of Inebriety published the first report on the negative effects of combing alcohol consumption with motor vehicle driving (Loewit-Phillips, 1). Fast forward to 1932, a study revealed that there was an as...
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that Marsh remained binding authority. According to R v Hughes, an offence under 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act required proof that it was the appellant’s fault which contributed to the death of the victim. In the case, it was concluded that Mr Taylor’s driving was not at fault. In Williams, the offence charged was the same as R v Hughes and the trial judge concluded that the fault was not a component of the offence. This ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided to apply Marsh and hence overturned the ruling of
A drunk driver is too impaired to operate a motor vehicle because his or her mental facu...