! !

!""#$%$

! !

EXAM REVIEW
EXAM FORMAT OVERVIEW
Section A: Short Answer Choose 3 out of 6 questions Graded out of 15 5 marks for each of the 3 categories Drawn from the bolded terms: 20 terms from 1B to 4B Section B: Short Answer + Case Choose 2 out of 4 questions o 4 short answer questions) different from those offered in Section A) and 4 case options will be given demonstrate logical connection o Pick a term and then pick a case that correlate Cases drawn from 2B, 3B and 4B o 12 cases total Know the dates 40 marks each

GRADING BREAKDOWN
Total: 125 marks Section A: 45 marks Total o Background facts, concepts and context: 5 marks what came before and after in lecture; history; scope o Key issues, controversies, and debates associated with that term 5 marks link to broader material; problems associated with term o Why is it significant or relevant in the broader scope of the course 5 marks what of that debate how does it impact other issues in the course Section B: 80 marks o 15 for Term: 25 for Case Part o Short Answer is the same as Section A o Case (explains or expands on some aspect of the term) ! Facts: 5 marks ! Issue: 5 marks ! Decision: 2 marks who won not just appeal dismissed ! Reason: 5 marks ! Relevance: explain how it relates to short answer term: 8 marks

EXAM TIME BREAK DOWN

Section A: 8 minutes each: 3x8 minutes = 24 minutes Section B: 22 minutes each: 2x22 minutes = 44 minutes Review: 12 minutes Total: 80 minutes

! !

!""#$%$

! !

QUESTIONS
Issue: should be taken from lecture, but you can also expand it further, making it subjective. Fairness: scope of right and wrong has been set out by interpretation of Charter. A lot of defenses come from fairness o Substantive: Section 7 o Proceedural: trial in reasonable time, search and seizures, arbitrary detention: rules for processes of law what cops/justices etc can or cannot do Regulatory Offences: seriousness of the act Licensing Provincial & Municipal more likely to encounter o Issue: Jurisdiction, Thin Skull Rule: take the victim as they are didnt intend to kill them, but the victim has a thin skull and bumps their head when you push them and that kills them cannot blame the victim you could reasonably foresee De Minimis: What is significant and insignificant - what is not insignificant wanted to change language: what is significant Marked departure: negligence is the grey area -- departing so far from civil norms that you are now a criminal. Reasonable Persons Test? o Modified objective Approach: Would a reasonable person have acted the same way? Sometimes circumstances are so bizarre that this cannot be determined. Way to determine if simultaneous principle applies

! !

!""#$%$

! !

Term: Criminal Law Facts This is a course on criminal law, so there is a lot of technical language involved. At the same time it is also a course that aims to develop your skills as Liberal Arts students. The technical language, such as the Latin terms used in statutes and case decisions, can make the content difficult, which is why this course is usually taught at the 2nd year level. Issues What this course isnt about is criminology, which explores the causes of crime and develops approaches to crime prevention. At base, we know that without law, there is no crime which is to say that criminal laws do not exist without those acts that society and state consider bad. As such, criminal law is essentially about morality. We explore which acts are deemed bad, why, how harshly we should punish, and how different circumstances lead to different verdicts. Relevance By looking at criminal law, we can turn a mirror on ourselves; which acts we punish and how harshly tell us a lot about our social values. Levels of tolerance toward certain types of rule-breaking fluctuate, depending on time and place. Ultimately, criminal laws are a measure of what were expect from each other, and what we can expect from the state. R v. Dudley & Stephens Facts This case was decided by the Queens Bench in 1884. The Respondents were Dudley and Stephens. The Respondents, along with Brooks and Parker, were stranded on a lifeboat after their yacht sank. Dudley and Stephens, with Brooks, considered killing and eating Parker, the youngest and weakest. Brooks did not agree, but Dudley, with Stephenss consent, kills Parker 16 days after being lost at sea. They all consumed some part of Parker, and were rescued 4 days after. The question before the court is whether necessity (specifically in the name of survival or self-preservation) provides reasonable grounds for this act, or if this act should be considered murder. Jury could not come to a decision, so a special verdict was rendered. Dudley and Stephens were initially sentenced to death by hanging. This sentence was eventually commuted to 6 months after they were recommended for mercy. Necessity, in this case survival, cannot justify murder. Though they were compelled to act in a way to save their own lives, and even if Parker were to die first anyway, they do not then have the right to commit murder. Even though the circumstances that informed their actions were extremely dire, they nevertheless should be found guilty Self-defence is the only justifiable defence against a murder charge. Though Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder, that they were not executed suggests that the circumstances that they found themselves in did have a role in lessening their sentences. The judge in the case asked who is to decide necessity? and how do we measure the value of lives?; these questions emphasize the moral dimensions of the case. As it relates to criminal law, this case is relevant because it fundamentally returns to the question so what we can reasonably expect from each other. We reasonably expect not to be killed by another member of society. So if our social values deem murder as a punishable act, why might we recognize that under certain conditions the killing of another need not be punished as harshly? In these instances we get a sense of the flexibility of criminal law, how it is fundamentally related to the moral norms of a given time and place, and how circumstances of every case impact the decision rendered.

Issue

Decision

Reason

Relevance