Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    AR + MR Case Studies

    Uploaded by

    Jade Miller
    This document discusses 4 court cases involving criminal charges: 1) R v Wilson - A man was charged with driving causing death while intoxicated, but police did not administer a breathalyzer. He was acquitted of impaired driving due to lack of evidence. 2) R v Memarzadeh - A man was charged with breaking and entering a home, but the appeal court agreed there was no evidence he had been at the premises. 3) R v Goodine - A man confessed his involvement in a murder to friends and was charged as an accessory, but avoided aiding/abetting charges by claiming duress. 4) R v Molodwic - A man

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AR + MR Case Studies

    Uploaded by

    Jade Miller
    39 views2 pages
    This document discusses 4 court cases involving criminal charges: 1) R v Wilson - A man was charged with driving causing death while intoxicated, but police did not administer a breathalyzer. He was acquitted of impaired driving due to lack of evidence. 2) R v Memarzadeh - A man was charged with breaking and entering a home, but the appeal court agreed there was no evidence he had been at the premises. 3) R v Goodine - A man confessed his involvement in a murder to friends and was charged as an accessory, but avoided aiding/abetting charges by claiming duress. 4) R v Molodwic - A man

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses 4 court cases involving criminal charges: 1) R v Wilson - A man was charged with driving causing death while intoxicated, but police did not administer a breathalyzer. He was acquitted of impaired driving due to lack of evidence. 2) R v Memarzadeh - A man was charged with breaking and entering a home, but the appeal court agreed there was no evidence he had been at the premises. 3) R v Goodine - A man confessed his involvement in a murder to friends and was charged as an accessory, but avoided aiding/abetting charges by claiming duress. 4) R v Molodwic - A man

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    39 views2 pages

    AR + MR Case Studies

    Uploaded by

    Jade Miller
    This document discusses 4 court cases involving criminal charges: 1) R v Wilson - A man was charged with driving causing death while intoxicated, but police did not administer a breathalyzer. He was acquitted of impaired driving due to lack of evidence. 2) R v Memarzadeh - A man was charged with breaking and entering a home, but the appeal court agreed there was no evidence he had been at the premises. 3) R v Goodine - A man confessed his involvement in a murder to friends and was charged as an accessory, but avoided aiding/abetting charges by claiming duress. 4) R v Molodwic - A man

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    AR + MR Case Studies

    R v Wilson
    1. Is there intent or recklessness in this case?
    Yes. On Mr. Wilsons part there is recklessness. Mr. Wilson was drunk and still chose to
    drive.
    2. What contradiction is the court of appeal referring to in the trial decision?
    Wilson has argued that the judge had convicted him of dangerous driving causing death
    under the influence of alcohol but had acquitted him of an impaired driving charge.
    3. What mistake did the arresting police make and how did it influence the decision
    of the case trial?
    Police had arrested Wilson for intoxication in a public place but Wilson didn’t take breath
    samples. Therefore, Wilson would be able to argue he wasn’t intoxicated. Because
    police didn't take a breath sample, he was acquitted of the impaired driving charge.
    4. Which verdict do you support?
    I agree with Mr. Wilson. Because officers did not make him take a breath sample upon
    the time of event there was no solid evidence to prove he was under the influence.
    Therefore only justifying the charge of driving causing death.

    R v Memarzadeh
    1. Identify the actus reus.
    Breaking and entering into the home.
    2. Mens rea?
    Memarzadeh had said he could not recall being at the police station on the day of the
    break and enter.
    3. Which decision do you agree with? Court or appeal court?
    I agree with the appeal court. Reason being, there was no solid evidence that the home
    had actually been broken into or that Memazadeh had been on the premises.

    R v Goodine
    1. Why did the crown appeal the accused acquittal?
    Because Goodine had told his friends and confessed, in which the friends then reported
    the murder.
    2. What is the actus reus of accessory after the fact?
    Goodine telling his friends about the murder
    3. Why was Goodine not charged with aiding and abetting?
    Because he was not the one who encouraged Johnson to commit the crime. Instead he
    did what Johnston told him to do out of fear.
    4. Goodine can use the defense of ‘duress’ to explain her actions. He can justify that he felt
    fear in that moment and possibly fear in the future because of johnson and fear that he
    might harm him next.
    5. Aiding and abetting. Goodine possibly felt he had no other choice but to follow Johnson,
    therefore the jury acquitted him of those charges.

    R v Molodwic
    1. The actus rea would be the physical killing of his grandfather. I would say there was no
    mens rea at the time. The defence was suffering from schizophrenia and was not in the
    right state of mind when the murder was committed.
    2. Because the defense had a mental illness.
    3. I believe in some circumstances mental illness could be a reason to nullify criminal
    responsibility. Having a definite mens rea is necessary when committing a crime.
    Therefore, if the mental state is not there or the defendant was not in a right state of
    matter the murder should be justified through that.

    You might also like