Classification of Offences (POA): Difference between revisions
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
and might well be regarded as a branch of administrative law to which traditional principles of criminal law have but limited application. They relate to such everyday matters as traffic infractions, sales of impure food, violations of liquor laws, and the like. In this appeal we are concerned with pollution. | and might well be regarded as a branch of administrative law to which traditional principles of criminal law have but limited application. They relate to such everyday matters as traffic infractions, sales of impure food, violations of liquor laws, and the like. In this appeal we are concerned with pollution. | ||
The doctrine of the guilty mind expressed in terms of intention or recklessness, but not negligence, is at the foundation of the law of crimes. In the case of true crimes there is a presumption that a person should not be held liable for the wrongfulness of his act if that act is without mens rea: (R. v. Prince[4]; R. v. Tolson[5]; R. v. Rees[6]; Beaver v. The Queen[7]; R. v. King[8]). <b>Blackstone made the point over two hundred years ago in words still apt: <u>“…to constitute a crime against human law, there must be first a vicious will, and secondly, an unlawful act consequent upon such vicious will…,”</u></b> 4 Comm. 21. <u><b>I would emphasise at the outset that nothing in the discussion which follows is intended to dilute or erode that basic principle.</u></b> | <u><b>The doctrine of the guilty mind expressed in terms of intention or recklessness, but not negligence, is at the foundation of the law of crimes.</u></b> In the case of true crimes there is a presumption that a person should not be held liable for the wrongfulness of his act if that act is without mens rea: (R. v. Prince[4]; R. v. Tolson[5]; R. v. Rees[6]; Beaver v. The Queen[7]; R. v. King[8]). <b>Blackstone made the point over two hundred years ago in words still apt: <u>“…to constitute a crime against human law, there must be first a vicious will, and secondly, an unlawful act consequent upon such vicious will…,”</u></b> 4 Comm. 21. <u><b>I would emphasise at the outset that nothing in the discussion which follows is intended to dilute or erode that basic principle.</u></b> | ||
Revision as of 21:57, 2 February 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2338 |
| Page Categories: | [Provincial Offences] |
| Citation: | Classification of Offences (POA), CLNP 2338, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/02/02 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 1299[1]
[Page 1303]
and might well be regarded as a branch of administrative law to which traditional principles of criminal law have but limited application. They relate to such everyday matters as traffic infractions, sales of impure food, violations of liquor laws, and the like. In this appeal we are concerned with pollution.
The doctrine of the guilty mind expressed in terms of intention or recklessness, but not negligence, is at the foundation of the law of crimes. In the case of true crimes there is a presumption that a person should not be held liable for the wrongfulness of his act if that act is without mens rea: (R. v. Prince[4]; R. v. Tolson[5]; R. v. Rees[6]; Beaver v. The Queen[7]; R. v. King[8]). Blackstone made the point over two hundred years ago in words still apt: “…to constitute a crime against human law, there must be first a vicious will, and secondly, an unlawful act consequent upon such vicious will…,” 4 Comm. 21. I would emphasise at the outset that nothing in the discussion which follows is intended to dilute or erode that basic principle.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 1299, <https://canlii.ca/t/1mkbt>, retrieved on 2024-02-02
