Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Sample Exam - Criminal Law - 0103

    Uploaded by

    Chaneda Vac
    The document summarizes the key elements of the actus reus and mens rea that the Crown must prove for the offence of robbery in Canada. For the actus reus, the Crown must prove an act of stealing, which includes taking or converting property without consent. The Crown can also prove threat or use of violence that precedes or follows the stealing. For the mens rea, the Crown must prove intent to steal or intent to overcome resistance to stealing through force or threats. The facts of the case suggest the Crown may have difficulty proving the threat element or actual force. Finally, the document confirms that robbery is not a hybrid offence in Canada.

    Copyright:

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

    Sample Exam - Criminal Law - 0103

    Uploaded by

    Chaneda Vac
    115 views2 pages
    The document summarizes the key elements of the actus reus and mens rea that the Crown must prove for the offence of robbery in Canada. For the actus reus, the Crown must prove an act of stealing, which includes taking or converting property without consent. The Crown can also prove threat or use of violence that precedes or follows the stealing. For the mens rea, the Crown must prove intent to steal or intent to overcome resistance to stealing through force or threats. The facts of the case suggest the Crown may have difficulty proving the threat element or actual force. Finally, the document confirms that robbery is not a hybrid offence in Canada.

    Original Description:

    This is the sample exam for NCA criminal exam. You can attempt the questions to test your ability.

    Original Title

    Sample exam_criminal law_0103

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the key elements of the actus reus and mens rea that the Crown must prove for the offence of robbery in Canada. For the actus reus, the Crown must prove an act of stealing, which includes taking or converting property without consent. The Crown can also prove threat or use of violence that precedes or follows the stealing. For the mens rea, the Crown must prove intent to steal or intent to overcome resistance to stealing through force or threats. The facts of the case suggest the Crown may have difficulty proving the threat element or actual force. Finally, the document confirms that robbery is not a hybrid offence in Canada.

    Copyright:

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

    Sample Exam - Criminal Law - 0103

    Uploaded by

    Chaneda Vac
    The document summarizes the key elements of the actus reus and mens rea that the Crown must prove for the offence of robbery in Canada. For the actus reus, the Crown must prove an act of stealing, which includes taking or converting property without consent. The Crown can also prove threat or use of violence that precedes or follows the stealing. For the mens rea, the Crown must prove intent to steal or intent to overcome resistance to stealing through force or threats. The facts of the case suggest the Crown may have difficulty proving the threat element or actual force. Finally, the document confirms that robbery is not a hybrid offence in Canada.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Sample Exam Question 1 Criminal law Ronald Chan

    Question #1
    What is the actus reus for the offence of robbery that the Crown must prove?

    Robbery can be provide by the Crown under four different ways , namely (a) use of violence or threats of violence (b)
    Stealing and using violence (c) Assault with intent to steal and (d) stealing while armed. The actus reus(AR) for (a), (c)
    and (d robbery includes an common element act of stealing in (a), (b) and (d), while only the actus reus of assault is
    needed to be proved in (c). An act of stealing is defined in s.322 of the Criminal Code (Theft) as to commit theft, in
    which the element of theft includes the accused takes or converts anything. In addition to this element of act of
    stealing, the Crown can prove the AR by (a) proving that the accused’s use of violence or threats of violence or (b) is
    armed while stealing. The violence or assault does not have to be in furtherance of the theft itself – it only has to
    immediately precede or follow it. To prove robbery under para (c), the actus reus is that of assault, which occurs when
    the accused directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person without their consent. Situations where
    no consent obtained includes where the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the
    complainant,
    where the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity, where the accused induces the complainant to engage
    in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority, where the complainant expresses, by words or conduct,
    a lack of agreement to engage in the activity, or where the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity,
    expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

    What facts will the Crown rely on to prove the actus reus?

    Based on the facts, the fact that Tammy emptied the purse of the complaint to prove the act of stealing under para (a),
    (b) and (d)is likely to constitute an act of stealing. The real difficulty is to prove threat in this case, as on the facts
    Tammy merely cursed the complainant. Threat of violence requires demonstration from which phycial injury to the
    victim may be reasonably apprehended(R v Sayers And McCoy), here it seems that mere cursing may not suffice the test.

    If the Crown is to rely on para (c), the Crown needs to prove both the direct or indirect application of force and the
    consent. The Crown may likely relies on the fact that the complainant screams evidenced that the complainant
    expresses a lack of agreement. The greatest hurdle is to prove the application of force. Words alone unaccompanied by
    any gesture do not constitute the act of assault (R v Bryne). And the fact that Tammy blocked the door with here knee
    preventing the complainant from closing the door may not suffice as the application of force. Here, the fact that Tammy
    merely curse the complainant is unlikely to satisfy this requirement.

    To prove causation, it involves an analsyis into factual and legal causation. Here, it is likely that Tammy’s act leads to the
    handover of the money by the complainant. The passer-by also serves as a witness.

    Question #2

    What is the mens rea for the offence of robbery that the Crown must prove?

    The mens rea for robbery for the different paragraphs in s.343 includes an intent to steal (for para (c)) or an intention to
    prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing by using force or threat.

    What facts will the Crown rely on to prove the mens rea?

    As the Crown would rely on the evidence of the passer-by to give evidence on whether Tammy has intent to steal. The
    test applied would be a subject mens rea test, as it is related to intention. It may be argued that the Tammy’s act of
    blocking the door may evidenced an intent to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, but since on the facts it is
    not clear whether the passer-by witnessed this action, it may be difficult for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable
    doubt.
    Sample Exam Question 1 Criminal law Ronald Chan
    Related to the defence, the fact that Tammy is intoxicated would not serve as a defence as Extreme intoxication is NOT a
    defence to any offence which involves assault as an element or involves interfering, or threatening to interfere, with a
    persons bodily integrity, whether or not that person, by reason of the intoxication, lacked the general intent or
    voluntariness required for the offence(s.33.1 of the Criminal Code)

    Tammy probably would not be convicted of the offence, although she could possibly be convicted of theft.

    Question #3
    Explain whether robbery is a hybrid offence

    Hybrid offence is an offence which can be prosecuted either as a summary offence or as an indictable offence.
    According to s.344, since there is no statutory provision that the offence can be punishable on summary conviction, it is
    not a hybrid offence.

    You might also like