'Law Exam Review\r'

'Or the dupe choosing non to wealthy person a blood transfusion? * Court sentiment: * Guilty. Thin skull rule Those who single-valued function violence once against others mustiness take victims as they find them Blaue had to take the victim as a Jehovah’s ravisher * The defendant is non responsible if the victim dies as a result of an unrelated event If his sufficeions light-emitting diode to the event, he is still guilty R v Hummel (Stare decisis- cut courts must exist high courts) * compact: Judge Perkins did not follow a covert finding of a higher court (contravening the principle of stare decisis) * Perkins struck down a class of the savage code, in favour of the defendant * The streamer appealed, and judge Clements disagreed with Perkins, allowing the appeal * Shortly subsequently, Perkins had another ssimilar case, and refused to follow Clement’s judgment. He once again adopted his own reasoning as in the previous case. * Legal dogma: * Decis ions of a higher court must be followed because that is what holds common fair play together.Their decisions are â€Å"binding decisions” * It doesn’t matter that Perkins could rush been more intelligent than Clements * thoughts of higher courts bind lower courts R v Ladue (Does mistake negate mens rea? ) * abridgment: * Woman at a dampy died from imbibition too much alcohol * Forensics showed that Ladue had sex with her after he died * He couldn’t be supercharged with sexual assault because he was dead * He was charged with doing an indignity to a dead body * apply the defending team that he did not hunch forward she was dead, so he had no mens reaR v shuttle and Bolduc (Doctor allowed friend to examine patient) * abridgment: * doctor told a female patient that his friend was a checkup intern * she gave apply for the friend to observe a medical examination * The bosh was as to the identicalness of the onlooker, not as to the act, of which she kn ew and understand. * Legal Principal: * 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 * dupe knew that Bird was present and consented to his presence * Innocent: the fraud had nothing to do with the act, but with Bird’s identity * If he touched her, it would have dark into an assault R v Campbell and Mlynarchuk (Stripper case, mistake of police) * abbreviation: * Campbell was convicted of dancing naked * Previously, Alberta supreme court do dancing naked legal * Campbell did not know that the Court of Appeal overruled it * Legal Principle: erroneousness of fact is a defense to a criminal charge, mistake of law is not * Court Ruling: * Campbell’s 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 i n order to prevent ignorance of the law as a defense * Out of the hotshot of justice, (naked dancing is not a prevalent problem), Campbell got an secure discharge * Mistake of fact is a defense to a criminal charge, mistake of law is not R v Keegstra (Freedom of patois vs hate speech) * Summary: Keegstra was a schoolteacher who taught his sstudents anti-Semitism and expected them to use his teachings on exams. If they didn’t, their marks suffered * A few months after a parent complained, Mr. Keegstra was dismissed * Legal Principle: * S. 319 bans promoting hate against an identifiable group * Charter protects freedom of speech * Court Ruling: * Court of Appeal states it was defend under s. 319 2(b), which protects innocent and imprudent speech (people who entail that their hate speech is actually true) * Majority: Failed the Oakes equilibrium test.Hate propaganda contributes little to the quest for truth, or the protection and rearing of a vibrant democracy The infring ement was warrant R v Rabey (Automatism) * Summary: * Stabbed a woman after finding out that she doesn’t akin him * Used the defense of non-insane automatism, stating that he had a dimout due to his rage (powerful emotional shock) * Legal Principle: * Was his dissociative state due to a affection of the top dog? * Court Ruling: * His automatism was insane * quotidian stresses and disappointments of life do not explain the mind alfunctioning * Rabey’s emotional stress from the girl’s rejection is not reasonable It was due to his psychological or emotional make-up, thus constituting â€Å"disease of the mind” R v Ruzic (Duress) * Summary: * Ruzic landed in Pearson airdrome with 2 kilos of heroin and a fake crack * She used the defense of duress, because a man in Serbia would kill her mother if she didn’t listen to him\r\n'