A 95-year-old widow who lived alone was robbed and left bound with electrical wire on her bed with a garment around her head and neck. Sometime during the next 48 hours, she died from asphyxiation. During an RCMP undercover operation, the accused told a police officer that he had been involved in the robbery and death. The accused was charged with first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code -- murder while committing the offence of unlawful confinement -- and tried before a judge and jury. At trial, he claimed that he had fabricated the admission. He testified that he had gone alone to the victim’s house only with intent to break and enter, that the back door to the house was open as though someone already had broken into the home, and that he left after finding the victim already dead in her bedroom. The trial judge charged the jury on manslaughter, second degree murder and first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Code. In response to a request from the jury that he clarify the elements of first degree murder and the “substantial cause” test, the trial judge essentially reiterated his charge. Overall, he charged that the standard of causation for manslaughter and second degree murder was that the accused’s actions must have been “more than a trivial cause” of the victim’s death while, for first degree murder under s. 231(5), the accused’s actions also must have been a “substantial cause” of her death. On two occasions, however, once in the main charge and once in the re-charge, he described the standard of causation for second degree murder as “the slight or trivial cause necessary to find second degree murder” instead of “more than a trivial cause”. The jury found the accused guilty of second degree murder and the Court of Appeal upheld that verdict. The only ground of appeal both before the Court of Appeal and this Court concerned the test of causation applicable to second degree murder.
prepare the Crown arguments regarding whether Forrest can be proven on these facts to have aided in the trafficking or the possession of narcotics, or both. The Crown has also asked also to identify and assess any arguments that you think defense counsel might make. In considering whether it is likely that Forrest will be convicted, you may assume that the facts set out in the hypothetical case will be proven in court, and that no other relevant facts arise. NOTE: Please consider that the Crown has a duty to consider whether prosecution is in the public interest (having regard to the harm caused by Forrest’s actions and her degree of moral blameworthiness) and whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction if the matter proceeds to trial.So, you need to explain the reasons why Corley Forrest could be found guilty of the charge of aiding Morgan Height in drug trafficking (remember aiding is the same as actually doing) based on the facts outlined in the story. You'll need to find out what the charge of drug trafficking in cocaine involves and what the Controlled Drug and Substances Act says possession is.
Then, you'll need to determine what aiding means so look at the Parties to an offense
at the Canadian Criminal Law notebook & at the Criminal Code (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-21.html).
You'll also need to look at the principles of sentencing, the options for sentencing, and then sentencing for Drug Offences at the Canadian Criminal Law Notebook or at Ron Jourard's chart for drug offenses.
You were also asked to look at defense council's options so look at possible defenses for Forrest.
So, using the text and the criminal code, and explain from the facts given to you if Forrest can be found guilty. You will also need to explain how you think the defense lawyer would argue that Forrest should be found not guilty.
C Block Social and Environmental Sciences - Our topic for the next three weeks is mountains. Today you’ll look at tectonics and plate boundaries. You’ll have to take down a few notes on divergent, convergent, and transform plate boundaries along with hot spots. We'll also try to understand the craton of North America (focusing on the Canadian Shield, also called the Laurentian Plateau, which is a large area of exposed Precambrian igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks that forms the ancient geological core of the North American continent). Some of the rocks in the Canadian Shield are over 3.96 billion years old, and Laurentia has been together in its present form for the last billion years. We'll also try to understand the Wrangellia Terrane AKA - where we live and the Beaufort Mountain range (focusing on the Mg rich Karmutsen Formation that formed on the ocean basin 230 mya and arrived on the west coast of Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii about 100 mya) along with folding (the Rockies). This will allow us to understand the deformation of rock strata that helps to create mountains.
Do you know what else creates mountains? Lava...as in volcanoes. Why is this a deal..with Young we'll ask "Why are Mountains Sacred?" and our focus this week will be on Mauna Kea. The mountain, called Mauna O Wakea by Native Hawaiians, is the tallest in the islands, and its summit, considered to be a wao akua, or “realm of the gods.” is considered most sacred in traditional Hawaiian culture. Mauna Kea is sacred because it is the piko, or umbilical cord that connects the Creator to the people of Hawai’i, it is the place where the sky god, Wakea, met with Papahānaumoku, the earth goddess, leading to the creation of the islands. Only the highest-ranking chiefs were historically believed to be fit to go there. There are other cultural sites on the mountain, including a sacred lake, significant burial sites and a historic quarry where stone tools were made. So why are we going to talk about Mauna Kea?
In April 2013, the Thirty Meter Telescope project was approved, which would be the largest telescope ever built and its location would be on top of Mauna Kea. Its construction on a “sacred landscape”, replete with endangered species, ecological concerns, and ongoing cultural practices, continues to be a hot topic of debate and protest. Indigenous activists continue to oppose its construction and are fighting for the protection of their most sacred mountain. From Smithsonian magazine
What is really at stake, however, is a conflict between two ways of knowing and being in the world. For many Native Hawaiians and other Indigenous peoples, sacredness is not merely a concept or label. It is a lived experience of oneness and connectedness with the natural and spiritual worlds. It is as common sense as believing in gravity. This experience is very much at odds with the everyday secular-humanist approach of Western thinking that emerged out of the Enlightenment, which sees no “magic” or “enchantment” in the world. And of course, seeing nature as inert facilitates both commercial exploitation and scientific explorationHmmm...there's that worldview argument thingy we've been focusing on in the course (yep, iiiiiiiit's baaaaaaaack!) Tomorrow and Wednesday we'll work on some questions about Mauna Kea.
No comments:
Post a Comment