Concurrence
Chief Justice Lamer, speaking for himself, agreed with the majority's ruling, but went further to consider the defence of officially induced error. He recognized that although mistake of law is no excuse, the strict application of the doctrine could cause injustice:
The Chief Justice of Canada is the presiding judge of the nine-member Supreme Court of Canada, the highest judicial body in Canada. As such, the chief justice is the highest-ranking judge of the Canadian court system. The Supreme Court Act grants plenary power to the Governor General to appoint—with the advice of the Prime Minister—a chief justice, who serves until they resign, die, are removed from office for cause, or attain the age of 75 years. By tradition, a new chief justice is chosen from among the Court's incumbent puisne justices.
Joseph Antonio Charles Lamer, was a Canadian lawyer, jurist and the 16th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact.
- Officially induced error of law exists as an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse. As several of the cases where this rule has been discussed note, the complexity of contemporary regulation makes the assumption that a responsible citizen will have a comprehensive knowledge of the law unreasonable. This complexity, however, does not justify rejecting a rule which encourages a responsible citizenry, encourages government to publicize enactments, and is an essential foundation to the rule of law. Rather, extensive regulation is one motive for creating a limited exception to the rule that ignorantia juris neminem excusat. (Jorgensen at para. 25)
After considering a number of academic sources and the developing Canadian jurisprudence, Lamer C.J.C. proposed that officially induced error be recognized in Canada as an excuse, operating similarly to the excuse of entrapment, which if successful would result in a stay of proceedings rather than acquittal. He listed six essential elements of the defence:
In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent."
A stay of proceedings is a ruling by the court in civil and criminal procedure, halting further legal process in a trial or other legal proceeding. The court can subsequently lift the stay and resume proceedings based on events taking place after the stay is ordered. However, a stay is sometimes used as a device to postpone proceedings indefinitely.
In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.
- The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
- The accused considered the legal consequences of her actions
- The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
- The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
- The advice obtained must be erroneous
- The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice
On the facts of the case, Lamer C.J.C. agreed with the acquittal by the majority, but would also have excused Jorgensen based on the officially induced error had the Crown proved its case. He found that Jorgensen met all six criteria. Most importantly, he found that Jorgensen had properly considered the legal consequences of his actions and that the OFRB was an appropriate official body for determining whether a film was legally allowed or not.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test, with the third prong being informally known by the initialism and mnemonic device "SLAPS" or the term "SLAPS test".
R v Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark case from the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court found that the standard for criminal liability for some offences can be lowered and not offend the Charter. This case marked the last in a series of cases, beginning with R. v. Tutton, discussing the use of an objective standard for determining mens rea in criminal offences.
R v Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pornography and state censorship. In this case, the Court had to balance the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with women's rights. The outcome has been described as a victory for anti-pornography feminism and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, but a loss for alternative sexualities.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.
R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.
R v Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of intoxication as an excuse to criminal liability which created what is known as the "Leary rule". The Court held that when the accused was found to be sufficiently intoxicated at the time of the offence to be unable to form the "minimal mental element" required for a general intent offence, they may still be held liable as the act of inducing intoxication can be substituted for the requirement of mens rea.
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the doctrine of vagueness. The Court held that laws can be struck down as a violation of section 7 where they are so vague as to violate fundamental justice.
R v Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on certain rights of the mentally ill in their criminal defence. The case concerned a constitutional challenge of the common law rule permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of an accused's insanity and section 542(2) of the Criminal Code, which allowed for the indeterminate detention of an accused who is found not guilty by reason of "insanity". The Court held that both the common law rule and the Code provision were unconstitutional. As a result, the Court created a new common law rule that was constitutional, and Parliament created new laws of what to do with individuals who were found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder. The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Canadian Association for Community Living.
R v Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that the "public interest" basis for pre-trial detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code violated section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right not to be denied reasonable bail, as it authorized detention on vague and imprecise grounds, and could not be saved by section 1.
Duke v R [1972] S.C.R. 917 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian Bill of Rights, concerning the right of an accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge.
Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case overturning a Georgia Supreme Court ruling regarding the depiction of sexual conduct in the film Carnal Knowledge.
An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscaena (offstage) a cognate of the Ancient Greek root skene, because some potentially offensive content, such as murder or sex, was depicted offstage in classical drama. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as "obscene profits" or "the obscenity of war". As a legal term, it usually refers to graphic depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity.
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.
R v Hibbert, [1995] 2 SCR 973, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on aiding and abetting and the defence of duress in criminal law. The court held that duress is capable of negating the mens rea for some offences, but not for aiding the commission of an offence under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Nonetheless, duress can still function as an excuse-based defence.
United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity. In the United States, discussion of obscenity revolves around what constitutes pornography and of censorship, but also raises issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. The States have a direct interest in public morality and have responsibility in relation to criminal law matters, including the punishment for the production and sale of obscene materials. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are a wide differences in such laws. The federal government is involved in the issue indirectly, by making it an offense to distribute obscene materials through the post, to broadcast it, as well as in relation to importation of such materials.
