Background
Carol Anne Tutton and Arthur Tutton were the parents of five-year-old Christopher Tutton who died on October 17, 1981. The Tuttons were deeply religious and believed in faith healing. They believed that Divine intervention could miraculously cure illnesses beyond the power of modern medicine. Mrs. Tutton believed that she had a premonition that God had healed her son of diabetes.
In April 1979, the family physician diagnosed Christopher as diabetic. The doctor explicitly informed the couple that their son would never be able to survive without insulin. On October 2, 1980, Mrs. Tutton stopped administering insulin and within 2 days her son became dangerously ill. The physician who attended the child said that on admission to hospital the child was dangerously ill, suffering from diabetic acidosis, a potentially fatal disorder which was due to the absence of insulin. The doctor admonished the parents when he learned that they had consciously withheld the insulin. He told the parents that insulin would be required by their son for life. Nevertheless, shortly after, Mrs. Tutton believed that she had had a vision of God in which she was told that Christopher had been cured and no more insulin was needed. Mrs. Tutton stopped the insulin injections on October 14, 1981. On October 17, 1981 Christopher was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead on arrival due to complications of diabetic hyperglycemia.
Analysis
Mr. and Mrs. Tutton were charged and convicted of criminal act manslaughter by failing their duty to provide the necessaries of life for their child, contrary to the criminal negligence provision s. 219 of the Criminal Code (then s. 202). Based on a belief held by the couple that the child was cured of its diabetes because of a premonition Mrs. Tutton purported to have, they ceased to give their child his daily insulin shots. As a result, the child died shortly thereafter. On appeal by the couple, the Court of Appeal held that, inter alia, the trial judge had erred in that he did not charge the jury that an omission arising under a negligence offence would require the proof of a subjective element of Mens Rea – namely, that the jury was satisfied that the couple knew that there was a risk to the life or safety of their child, and unjustifiably took that risk or closed their minds to any such risk. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices took three separate approaches on what the test for criminal negligence should be.
Justice McIntyre and L'Heureux-Dube were of this opinion: the test for negligence is objective. The justices were unable to see any difference in principle between cases arising from an omission to act and those involving acts of commission. In fact, s. 219 states that one is criminally negligent who, in doing anything or omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard... The objective test focuses on the conduct of the accused, as opposed to his intention or mental state. What is punished, in other words, is not the state of mind, but the consequences of mindless action. The use of the word “reckless” in the context of s. 219 does not employ its meaning of the extended definition of intention or malice, but rather employs the term as part of a definition of conduct which amounts to “negligence” in a criminal context. In other words, the word “reckless” in s. 219 does not call for the use of subjective mens rea when determining negligence. If the distinction is not kept up, the dividing line between traditional mens rea offences and the offence of criminal negligence will become blurred. Having said that, the Justices emphasized that the application of the objective test in s. 219 cannot be made in a vacuum. Events occur within the framework of other events and actions and, when deciding on the nature of the questioned conduct, surrounding circumstances must be considered. The decision must be made on a consideration of the facts existing at the time and in relation to the accused's perception of those facts. Since the test is objective, the accused's perception of the facts is not to be considered for the purpose of assessing malice or intention, but only to form a basis for a conclusion as to whether or not the accused's conduct, in view of his perception of the facts, was reasonable. In other words, it is no defense to say, on the subjective level, “I was being careful” or “I believed I could do what I did without undue risk”. The defense arises only if that belief was reasonably held. This is particularly true where, as here, the accused has raised the defense of mistake of fact. In the case of Pappajohn, it was held that the honest belief of a fact need not be reasonable, because its effect would be to deny the existence of the requisite mens rea. The situation is different, however, where the offence charged rests upon the concept of negligence. In such a case, an unreasonable, though honest, belief on the part of the accused could be negligently held.
Justice Lamer concurred with the above; however, he was of the opinion that when applying the objective norm test of s. 219, there must be made a “generous allowance” for factors which are particular to the accused, such as youth, mental development and education.
Justice Wilson, Dickson and LaForest did not agree that criminal negligence under s. 219 consists only of conduct in breach of an objective standard and does not require the Crown to prove that the accused had any degree of guilty knowledge. They asserted that the institution of an objective standard for criminal negligence, in essence, constitutes an absolute liability offence, where conviction flows from proof of conduct which reveals a marked and substantial departure from the standard expected of a reasonable person. Aside from the consequences inherent in the application of an objective test, they found the relevant section (s. 219) ambiguous in nature, its interpretation shifting depending on the words emphasized by the interpreter. For example, emphasizing the words "shows" and "negligence" could give rise to an objective standard, whereas emphasizing the phrase “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” might suggest that Parliament intended some degree of advertence to the risk to the lives or safety of others to be an essential element of the offence. The justices argued that, coupled with the adjective "reckless", the word “wanton” clearly accentuates the meaning of willful blindness. Thus, they argue that the section signifies more than gross negligence in the objective sense, and actually requires some degree of awareness of advertence. They go on to say that conduct which shows a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others will by its nature constitute prima facie evidence of the mental element, and in the absence of evidence that casts doubt on the degree of mental awareness, proof of the act and reference to what a reasonable person in the circumstances must have realized will lead to a conclusion that the accused was aware of or willfully blind to the risk. In cases where the risk to the lives and safety of others present themselves in an obvious fashion, the accused's claim that he or she gave no thought to the risk or had simply a negative state of mind would in most cases amount to the culpable positive mental state of willful blindness to the prohibited risk. In the justice's perceived recognition of the harshness of a uniform application of an objective standard of criminal liability, they advocate a subjective dimension into the objective standard in order to relieve the harshness of imposing an objective standard on those who, because of their peculiar characteristics, could not fairly be expected to live up the standard set by the reasonable person. They advocate the use of a two-pronged test. They cite three formulations of the test, written by different authors, which are substantially the same:
- Determination of the wrongdoing, which proceeds on the basis of a breach of an objective standard;
- The court must then determine whether it would be fair to hold a particular accused responsible for the act of wrongdoing. This would take mental and physical capacities into consideration.
The justices argue that part two of the test is justified since to require that all misperceptions be reasonable will, in their view, not excuse many of those who through no fault of their own cannot fairly be expected to live up to the standard of the reasonable person.
The M'Naghten rule(s) (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) is a legal test defining the defence of insanity, first formulated by House of Lords in 1843. It is the established standard in UK criminal law, and versions have also been adopted in some US states (currently or formerly), and other jurisdictions, either as case law or by statute. Its original wording is a proposed jury instruction:
that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication. Where a crime requires a certain mental state to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions. With regard to punishment, intoxication may be a mitigating factor that decreases a prison or jail sentence. Numerous factors affect the applicability of the defense.
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus, is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.
In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.
R v Hundal [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, is one of several landmark Supreme Court of Canada cases where the court showed its first signs of moving away from the strict requirement for subjectively proven mens rea in criminal offences.
R v Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a 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.
In criminal law, a mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.
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.
In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.
In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.
In law, an omission is a failure to act, which generally attracts different legal consequences from positive conduct. In the criminal law, an omission will constitute an actus reus and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. In tort law, similarly, liability will be imposed for an omission only exceptionally, when it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to act or duty of care.
In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.
Although the legal system of Singapore is a common law system, the criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature and historically derives largely from the Indian penal code. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating, are set out in the Singaporean Penal Code. Other serious offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.
English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.
South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.
R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14 is a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that the offence of breaching bail conditions under the Criminal Code requires subjective mens rea.
R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited an accused from raising self-induced intoxication as a defence to criminal charges. The Court unanimously held that the section violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and struck it down as unconstitutional. The Court delivered the Brown decision alongside the decision for its companion case R v Sullivan.
