Background
On February 18, 1973, Smithers, a black teen, played in a hockey game against a team including Barrie Cobby, a white teen, in a Mississauga rink. During the game, Smithers was subject to numerous racial slurs by Cobby. Evidence given by numerous witnesses at the trial indicated both had a dislike for each other's behaviour and Cobby had often been using racial slurs toward Smithers. During their final game, Cobby was given a penalty for spearing Smithers during the game while Cobby was in the penalty box Smithers scored a goal and laughed in Cobby's direction. Cobby shouted further racial slurs and Smithers threatened Cobby that he was going to "get him" if Cobby did not apologize for making the ongoing racial insults.
After the game Smithers waited outside the rink for Cobby to leave. When Cobby came out Smithers chased him and was grabbed by at least 3 of Cobby's friends, Smithers grabbed Cobby's jacket and kicked Cobby once in the stomach area. Immediately Cobby fell to the ground and started to gasp for air. Cobby soon passed out and died shortly afterwards. It was discovered that he died from inhaling vomit after being kicked due to a rare condition in which his epiglottis failed. Although Smithers was unsure if the kick even landed (there were no marks on Cobby), he was still responsible.
Smithers was charged for manslaughter under section 205 of the Criminal Code (now section 222) for "caus[ing] the death of a human being". In his defence, Smithers argued that it was the epiglottis condition that caused death, not the blow.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the kick was a sufficient cause of the death to attract criminal liability.
A unanimous Court held that Smithers was guilty of causing death of a human being. The decision was written by Justice Dickson.
Opinion of the court
Dickson adopted the comments of G. Arthur Martin from a 1943 case note on the English Larkin case, where it was stated that "[t]here are many unlawful acts which are not dangerous in themselves and are not likely to cause injury which, nevertheless if they cause death, render the actor guilty of culpable homicide ... In the case of so-called intentional crimes where death is an unintended consequence the actor is always guilty of manslaughter at least."
The question Dickson considered was what degree of causation is required to prove guilt. Where consequences need not be intended such as manslaughter, he proposed the degree of contribution to the cause of death need only pass a de minimis test. That is, the Crown need only show that the amount contributed to the cause of death be more than trivial.
Dickson also reaffirmed the application of the thin skull doctrine in homicide, where the fact that Cobby was susceptible to failure of the epiglottis should not absolve Smithers from liability. Consequently, since the kick may have killed Cobby, its contribution to his death was more than trivial and so Smithers is criminally liable.
In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of the crime committed and the legal determination of a crime may depend upon both a mental state and actus reus, like the designation of a homicide as murder is a matter of intention to commit a crime or in some jurisdictions knowledge that one's action would cause a crime to be committed. The mitigation of culpability under some established legal doctrines may reduce the severity of some criminal charges, and so mental state is an element of most crimes, other than crimes of strict liability.
In Western jurisprudence, concurrence is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea, to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed.
Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.
The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.
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.
Culpable homicide is a categorisation of certain offences in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence. Unusually for those legal systems which have originated or been influenced during rule by the United Kingdom, the name of the offence associates with Scots law rather than English law.
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.
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.
The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, joint criminal enterprise or parasitic accessory liability is a common law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all reasonable results from that enterprise. The common purpose doctrine was established in English law, and later adopted in other common-law jurisdictions including Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, the Solomon Islands, Texas, Massachusetts, the International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.
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.
R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the standard for causation in criminal offences. The Court upheld the "Smithers test" for causation in a criminal charge for manslaughter or murder, but held the test for causation for second degree murder need not be expressed as "a contributing cause of death, outside the de minimis range". Instead, it would be preferable to use positive terms such as "significant contributing cause". In the case of first degree murder under section 231(5) of the Criminal Code, a jury must also consider the additional R v Harbottle "a substantial causation" standard, but only after finding the accused guilty of 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.
The born alive rule is a common law legal principle that holds that various criminal laws, such as homicide and assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". U.S. courts have overturned this rule, citing recent advances in science and medicine, and in several states feticide statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include fetuses in utero. Abortion in Canada is still governed by the born alive rule, as courts continue to hold to its foundational principles. In 1996, the Law Lords confirmed that the rule applied in English law but that alternative charges existed in lieu, such as a charge of unlawful or negligent manslaughter instead of murder.
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.
Corporate manslaughter is a crime in several jurisdictions, including England and Wales and Hong Kong. It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person's death. This extends beyond any compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of an individual. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into effect in the UK on 6 April 2008.
Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the actus reus and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws.
In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide.
English law contains homicide offences – those acts involving the death of another person. For a crime to be considered homicide, it must take place after the victim's legally recognised birth, and before their legal death. There is also the usually uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "Queen's peace". The death must be causally linked to the actions of the defendant. Since the abolition of the year and a day rule, there is no maximum time period between any act being committed and the victim's death, so long as the former caused the latter.
