Criminology assignment

What industry does this order relate to?

Education & Childcare

This examination constitutes 30% of the final grade for this course. In order to view the criteria for grading in CRIM 230 in Canvas, please click on to “Grading Criteria” in the “Syllabus” section.

Please answer both questions. Please do not write more than 1,000 words for each question – approximately three (3) pages (double-spaced) for each question. You are asked to use “normal-size” font [12-point]. Before writing your answers, please read (in the “Modules” section of Canvas), the sections entitled, “The Problem-Oriented Method of Study and Examination,” and “Laying Charges,” which will provide you with some guidance in the task of answering "problem-format" questions.

When you wish to refer to a case, it is sufficient to cite it in the following manner: (for example) "Briscoe (2010)” or “Briscoe (2010)”. Similarly, insofar as the Criminal Code is concerned, it is perfectly adequate to state (for example) "s. 465(1)(c).”

Best of Luck with the examination!

PLEASE ANSWER BOTH QUESTION ONE AND QUESTION TWO.

QUESTION ONE:

Flintwinch’s corner store is no longer profitable and he is facing bankruptcy. Flintwinch has always planned to retire in one or two years’ time and to move to California. In order to achieve his dream of a sunny retirement, Flintwinch decides to set fire to the store and to file a fraudulent claim against his insurance company. The store is adjacent to a small hardware shop, which, in turn, sits next to a senior citizens’ nursing home.

Flintwinch realizes that there is a risk of harm to other people whenever a fire consumes a building so he decides to set the fire at 2 a.m., when he believes that it is unlikely that there will be anyone hanging out in the immediate vicinity of the corner store. However, Flintwich does not want to set the fire himself so he hires Sparkler to do it. Flintwich gives Sparkler a large jerry can of gasoline and tells this is the exact amount that he should use to start the fire and that, because the amount of gasoline has been precisely measured, there is no danger of the fire spreading to other buildings. Tragically, Flintwinch has grossly overestimated the amount of gasoline that should be used and a massive fire erupts within a couple of minutes. Sparkler is seriously burned and runs into the street, where he collapses. The flames are so intense that, within minutes, they leap from Flintwich’s corner store to the hardware store, which also catches fire. In the hardware store, there are various volatile chemicals that explode and the fire then spreads rapidly to the senior citizens’ facility.

When the fire trucks finally arrive, the senior citizens’ facility has been seriously damaged and it is learned that five seniors have died as a consequence of smoke inhalation. Two fire fighters are also injured when part of the facility collapses on them. Sparkler is rescued by fire fighters who place him in an ambulance, which takes him to a hospital where he later recovers but is left with scarring on 70% of his body. The day after the fire, Flintwinch makes a claim against the insurance company. The fire department’s investigator rapidly confirms that the fire was the result of arson. Flintwich denies knowing Sparkler and claims that Sparkler set fire to the corner store entirely on Sparkler’s own initiative, while Sparkler claims that Flintwich had hired him to set the fire and that he acted solely on Fintwich’s instructions. Sparkler also claims that he honestly believed that the fire would only burn the corner store and not cause any damage to other buildings or injure anyone in the vicinity.

DISCUSS:

(a) The charges (if any) that might reasonably be laid against Flintwich and Sparkler.

(b) Indicate with which (if any) of these charges you would proceed, if you were Crown Counsel in this case. You should state your reasons for deciding with which (if any) charges you would proceed. You should take into account the likelihood that a specific charge would be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial and any defences that might be asserted by the lawyers for Flintwich and Sparkler respectively.

QUESTION TWO:

Lillyvick and Smallweed have no money and, in desperation, they decide to rob Mantalini’s Gelato Café. They agree that Lillyvick will keep watch outside the café while Smallweed relieves Mantalini of the money from the till. Smallweed tells Lillyvick that he will threaten Mantalini with a knife. Lillyvick and Smallweed put their plan into operation. Lillyvick waits outside the café in order to watch out for the police and to prevent anyone going into the café while Smallweed is perpetrating the robbery. Smallweed is alone in the café but, when he demands the money from the till, Mantalini refuses to hand it over and tells Smallweed that he has pressed an emergency button which will alert the police to the fact that Mantalini needs immediate assistance. Smallweed drops his knife and takes out a handgun, which he had concealed in his overcoat. Lillyvick hears a commotion in the café and notices that Smallweed is pointing a gun at Mantalini. Lillyvick yells to Smallweed that he wants nothing to do with firearms and that Smallweed is now “on his own.” Lillyvick then leaves the café and runs away.

Mantalini moves towards Smallweed and asks him to hand over the gun. Smallweed refuses and shoots Mantalini in the heart. Mantalini dies on the spot. Smallweed empties the till and runs out of the café. However, Smallweed is met by armed police officers and he surrenders to them. Lillyvick has also been apprehended by the police.

Upon questioning by the police, Lillyvick loudly asserts that he had no idea that Smallweed would be carrying a firearm and that he never expected that Smallweed would hurt Mantalini in any way (he states that the agreement was that Smallweed would merely threaten Mantalini). Lillyvick also claims that he was so disgusted with Smallweed’s deception that he “turned his back” on both Smallweed and the robbery plan. Smallweed claims that he had always intended to threaten Mantalini with a knife, as originally planned, but that he had been forced to change the plan when Mantalini “became aggressive” and “forced” Smallweed to shoot him.

DISCUSS:

(a) The charges (if any) that might reasonably be laid against Smallweed and Lillyvick.

(b) Indicate with which (if any) of these charges you would proceed, if you were Crown Counsel in this case. You should state your reasons for deciding with which (if any) charges you would proceed. You should take into account the likelihood that a specific charge would be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial and any defences that might be asserted by the lawyers for Smallweed and Lillyvick respectively.

*Note that you will need to study Unit 7 very carefully in order to answer this question.

The maximum number of words for each question is 1,000.

Unit 7: Summary of Chapter 7

This chapter deals with two major issues: (i) the various routes by which an individual may become a party to a criminal offence; and (ii) the inchoate (or uncompleted) offences of counselling, attempt and conspiracy.

The chapter begins with a discussion of section 21(1) of the Criminal Code, which provides that an accused person may become a party to a criminal offence when s/he actually commits the offence (thereby becoming the “principal”) or when s/he aids and/or abets another person in the commission of an offence. The concept of aiding involves the notion of actively providing assistance, whereas the concept of abetting involves the notion of encouraging the commission of the offence. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently ruled that Canadian law does not distinguish between parties to an offence and the principal offender: “…perpetrators, aiders and abettors [are] equally liable” (Briscoe (2012)).

Box 7 considers the infamous Pickton case (2010) and explores the implications of the principle that, in order to obtain a conviction of murder, it was not necessary for the jury to make a unanimous finding either that Pickton killed the victims himself or that he helped others to do so. It would not matter that some of the jury members may have been satisfied that Pickton killed the victims on his own and others may have been convinced that he helped others to carry out the killings: s. 21(1) would render him a party to murder in either of these circumstances. However, in all cases in which s. 21(1)(a) and/or (b) is engaged, the Crown must prove that the person accused of aiding and/or abetting actively rendered assistance to, and/or encouraged, the principal in the commission of the offence (actus reus). Furthermore, it must be established that the accused person intended to render such assistance or encouragement (mens rea). Mere passive acquiescence in the commission of an offence or mere presence at the scene of the crime does not, per se, constitute aiding or abetting unless the accused person is under a legal duty to act (e.g., a police officer in charge of a lock up or the duty of a parent to provide the necessaries of life (s.215)).

An accused person may become a party to an offence committed by another individual by means of the concept of “common intention.” Section 21(2) of the Criminal Code codifies the common law principle that, if two or more persons enter into an agreement to commit a crime and to assist each other in carrying out that plan, then each of those individuals is liable for all of the criminal acts that may be committed in pursuit of that agreement. Once the “common purpose” (the intent to commit a crime) has been established, then the Crown is also required to prove that the accused either knew or ought to have known that the offence committed by the other party or parties was a “probable consequence” of carrying out the common purpose. However, when the accused person is charged with being a party to murder or attempted murder, the Crown must prove that the accused possessed subjective foresight of death. In other words, the phrase, “ought to have known” in section 21(2) is invalid in relation to charges of murder and attempted murder because of the requirements of section 7 of the Charter. An accused person may escape liability by asserting that the party who actually committed the offence(s) in question went beyond the scope of the “common intention.” In addition, an accused person may be absolved of criminal responsibility under section 21(2) by communicating – in a timely and unequivocal fashion – an intention to withdraw from the “common intent.” The context of the communication must be taken into account when assessing its sufficiency. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gauthier (2013) adds an important requirement for an effective abandonment of the common intent: namely that “the accused took, in a manner proportional to his or her participation in the commission of the planned offence, reasonable steps in the circumstances either to neutralize or otherwise cancel out the effects of his or her participation or to prevent the commission of the offence.”

Section 22 of the Criminal Code stipulates that an individual who counsels another person to commit an offence will become a party to that offence if it is ultimately committed and if the Crown can prove that the accused knew, or ought to have known, that the offence was likely going to be committed as a result of the counselling. It is noted that the term “counselling” covers advising or recommending someone else to commit an offence as well as finding someone to commit an offence, persistently requesting someone to commit an offence, and provoking or instigating someone to commit an offence. While counselling is generally established through objective liability, in the context of murder charges, once again, the Crown must prove intention or extreme recklessness with respect to the “substantial and unjustified risk inherent in the counselling” in order to meet the mens rea requirement necessary for conviction (Hamilton, 2005).

Canadian courts have emphasized that the mens rea requirements for a criminal attempt may only be fulfilled by an actual intention to commit a crime. They have yet to recognize extreme recklessness as a sufficient form of mens rea. With respect to actus reus, the Crown must show that the accused took steps beyond “mere preparation.” Pursuant to section 24(2), the trial judge must then decide whether or not the actions of the accused are sufficiently proximate to the completed offence. If the actions of the accused are considered to be too "remote," then there may be no conviction. The requirements of section 24(1) are also noted. It states that the accused person may be convicted of an attempt ''whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence." However, there can be no liability for criminal attempt where the accused seeks to commit a crime that is not, in fact, known to the criminal law - a so-called "imaginary crime."

The final section of the chapter concerns the offence of conspiracy as provided for in section 465 of the Criminal Code. The basic elements of conspiracy have been defined by the courts to include (i) the existence of an agreement for a common purpose; (ii) between two or more persons; and (iii) where the common purpose was to commit a crime. There must be an actual agreement between the co-conspirators (the actus reus) as the courts will not recognize an “attempted conspiracy.” Moreover, the Crown must prove that there was an intention on the part of the alleged co-conspirators to put their common design into effect (the mens rea). Where one of two alleged co-conspirators does not intend to implement their criminal purpose, then there can be no conspiracy. But, no acts need to be taken in furtherance of the plan; just making the agreement fulfills the actus reus requirement (F.(J.) (2013). In F.(J.) 2013, the Supreme Court clarified that it is possible to aid or abet a conspiracy, but this is strictly limited to the aiding or abetting the act of agreeing. Reference is made to the rule that husband and wife may not be convicted of conspiring with each other, although they may both be convicted of conspiring with other individuals to commit a crime. As is the case with attempt, one cannot be convicted of a of a conspiracy to commit an "imaginary crime:" the common purpose must be to commit a crime known to the law (Dynar, 1997). The chapter concludes by explaining that Canadian law does not recognize an attempt to conspire as a criminal offence: “…an attempt to conspire amounts, at best, to a risk that a risk will materialize” (Déry (2006)).

After you have completed the required readings for Unit 7, test your knowledge by attempting to answer the study questions at the end of Chapter 7 in Criminal Law in Canada.

Grading/Marking Criteria

Evidence that you have read and understood the relevant course materials.

Your ability to identify – and apply - the relevant legal principles to the fact patterns that are presented to you in an assignment or examination.

Your ability to support your arguments with appropriate references to legal authorities: namely, relevant sections of the Criminal Code and cases decided by the courts. You are required to cite only those cases that have been assigned in the Required Readings or that have been identified by the instructor in the lectures.

Your ability to make well-reasoned and lucid arguments in support of your views

Your capacity to recognize the complexity of an answer and to appreciate the presence and validity of alternative opinions.

The correct use of grammar and the general quality of your writing style.

To gain access to the textbook Criminal Law in Canada.

Use the email: [email protected]

and the password: Hellomellow!

on https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/