Law 000

[Anynym]

After having to tread through some of the comments in the many threads on recent events in Toronto, I am left to wonder how many people have an understanding of the Law in Canada.

So I'll ask one very simple question. And it isn't about what you think is right or wrong, it's about what the Law is in Canada.

A driver is driving forward slowly. A police officer directs him to stop, but he continues moving forward. At some point the police officer's foot comes to be forward of the front tire of the vehicle, and the driver still does not stop but allows the car to roll over the officer's foot. The driver is charged. The Actus Reus element is conceded, but the Mens Rea component is challenged in Court. Is the driver guilty or not: Did the driver intentionally run over the police officer with his car?

 

[moresex4me]

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that be a matter for a jury to decide at trial? The crown would have to prove that the driver was of sound mind and body (i.e. understood their actions were wrong and were physically able to hear and see the cop in front of their vehicle), and that the vehicle they were driving was able to stop. Maybe some other extenuating circumstance that I can't think of right now.

If they saw the cop, kept going regardless and ran over a part of them, in a working vehicle that they could have stopped, and they understood their action was wrong, I believe the crown would have proved intent, or the mens rea portion.

If I'm wrong, let me know, because now I'm curious.

 

[hairyfucker]

A simple look into Wiki will provide the direction to the answer you quest.

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

Concepts
The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind.

 

[moresex4me]

A simple look into Wiki will provide the direction to the answer you quest.

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

Concepts
The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind.

Yes, I understood that, which is why I believe it to be a matter of fact to be decided at trial. Mens rea protects people from being convicted for accidents (unless they were negligent), versus people wilfully committing the crime. It also protects the mentally ill and children, because they do not understand their actions.

I'm curious about the particular example above, and what the OP was expecting to hear back.

 

[hairyfucker]

Yes, I understood that, which is why I believe it to be a matter of fact to be decided at trial. Mens rea protects people from being convicted for accidents (unless they were negligent), versus people wilfully committing the crime. It also protects the mentally ill and children, because they do not understand their actions.

I'm curious about the particular example above, and what the OP was expecting to hear back.

Understood. I was really directing more towards the OP.

In reality not enough info is provided by the OP regarding what the driver was charged with (it is assumed here only) as well as what is the basis of the challenge to the mens rea. Ultimately, if the charge includes intent and the challenge is valid then the intent is not sound and thus the charge is not valid.

If the charge was negligence then all becomes a different discussion. The basis of Vehicle and Traffic law includes the preface that every operator and/or owner, depending on the usage, of the vehicle shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle.

 

[oldjones]

Yes, I understood that, which is why I believe it to be a matter of fact to be decided at trial.…edit…

Which is where such matters are decided. Anything else, no matter how well thought out and supported by precedent, is just an argument.

Even when manifestly destined to be overturned on appeal, until then the court decision is what the law is on that matter.

 

[Moraff]

After having to tread through some of the comments in the many threads on recent events in Toronto, I am left to wonder how many people have an understanding of the Law in Canada.

Given what you've been posting I assume that this is something of a personal evaluation?

So I'll ask one very simple question. And it isn't about what you think is right or wrong, it's about what the Law is in Canada.

A driver is driving forward slowly. A police officer directs him to stop, but he continues moving forward. At some point the police officer's foot comes to be forward of the front tire of the vehicle, and the driver still does not stop but allows the car to roll over the officer's foot. The driver is charged. The Actus Reus element is conceded, but the Mens Rea component is challenged in Court. Is the driver guilty or not: Did the driver intentionally run over the police officer with his car?

In such matters there are rarely "simply questions".

You didn't say what the driver was being charged with.... not obeying the cop and/or injuring a pedestrian with his car? Nor do you say why the cop was trying to get him to stop. Ie the car was moving slowly... why didn't the cop pull his foot out of the way? Was there someone else in harm's way that the cop was trying to protect?

Making the assumption that the driver is fully mentally capable.

I would say the driver is guilty of running over the cop's foot. Even if he did not hear the officer's order to stop he should have been aware his vehicle was in a position to injure him. There may be some mitigation in the sentencing if the cop could have moved out of the way of the slow-moving car.

Whether or not the driver will be found guilty of not obeying a police officer will depend on proving he did or didn't hear him or if the officer was unclear on who he was directing his order to.

 

[daveluhrsen]

A driver is driving forward slowly. A police officer directs him to stop, but he continues moving forward. At some point the police officer's foot comes to be forward of the front tire of the vehicle, and the driver still does not stop but allows the car to roll over the officer's foot. The driver is charged. The Actus Reus element is conceded, but the Mens Rea component is challenged in Court. Is the driver guilty or not: Did the driver intentionally run over the police officer with his car?

The facts you present are somewhat similar to Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Assuming the charge against the driver is assault, it really comes down to whether the trier of fact believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally ran over the foot, as Intention would be necessary to establish the mens rea for assault. In other words, if the foot was run over by accident, even though the driver may have been intentionally disobeying the officer, then the driver is not guilty of assault.

 

[toguy5252]

People are presumed to intend the logical consequences of their actions. If you are being directed to stop it might then turn on whether or not you knew or ought to have known that the offciers foot was in front of the vehicle. In any event, TV shows aside, it is generally adviseable to obey directions given by a cop.

 

[Anynym]

Many good answers have been provided above.

Yes, I intentionally left out a few details (e.g. the exact charge), but as several commenters noted it doesn't really matter.

The driver argued at trial that he never intended to roll over the officer's foot, but rather merely allowed his car to continue on its earlier course. The Judge rejected that argument, finding that the intent (the mens rea element), while not necessarily present at the outset of events, was formed during the course of events. Guilty, convicted.

And yes, I believe that Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner is the case one would properly cite as precedent.

 

[yeet]

People are presumed to intend the logical consequences of their actions. If you are being directed to stop it might then turn on whether or not you knew or ought to have known that the offciers foot was in front of the vehicle.

What he said, Intent can also include "being reckless" as to whether or not you cause the consequences (the assault) of your actions (driving forward toward the cops foot).

(Lets put this thread to rest though, its dull)

 

[hairyfucker]

What he said, Intent can also include "being reckless" as to whether or not you cause the consequences (the assault) of your actions (driving forward toward the cops foot).

(Lets put this thread to rest though, its dull)

so why did you bring it back up three days after it ended?

 

[mandrill]

IIRC, it's a law school exam question. When the car rolls over the officer's foot, you have the actus reus because the officer has been physically impacted by the car. But if the driver does not realize he has run over the officer and did not initially mean to impact him, there is no mens rea for assault.

If the driver realizes that his car is now crushing the officer's foot and refuses to move the car, he now has the mens rea. However, the actus reus has already occurred at a tiime when the driver had no mens rea. As there is no new act to constitute actus at the time when mens rea is present, the offence of assault - which requires both actus reus and mens rea to be complete - has not been committed.

You guys all get that?