Case_Brief_Assignment.edited (2)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kenyatta University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
409
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by AlbertKioko
Case Brief Assignment
“Title and Citation: The case is titled "The Queen v. Ancio" and is reported as [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225.
It was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada”.
Facts
Sam Joseph Ancio (the respondent) forcefully entered an apartment carrying a loaded shotgun,
intending to engage his antagonist's wife, who was living there with another man named Kurely. When
Kurely heard someone breaking glasses, he confronted Ancio and threw a chair at him as he climbed the
stairs. During the ensuing struggle, the shotgun discharged, but it missed Kurely. Ancio was arrested, and
he admitted to the police that he restrained Kurely "by grabbing his neck, and he would have killed him."
During the trial, the judge discovered Ancio guilty of attempted murder, ruling that he had gained a way
into a building intending to force his wife out of the house using a shotgun.
Procedural History
The trial judge convicted Ancio of attempted murder. However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overruled
this judgment and demanded a new trial.
Legal Issues
1.
The primary legal issue in this case relates to whether the mens rea (mental element) needed for
murder attempt
is restricted
to the specific
killing intention or includes the intent to inflict
physical harm, knowing that it can likely result in death.
2.
Another issue is whether section 24 of the Criminal Code, in combination with constructive
murder sections (ss. 212 and 213), can serve as consideration for charging attempted murder.
Decision
The Canadian Supreme Court relied entirely on the majority decision and dismissed the appeal. The
outcome of the case was in favor of Ancio.
Reasons
1.
The majority of the judges adhered that the mens rea related to attempted murder is a particular
intent to kill.
2.
It was emphasized that a mental condition lacking in this specific intent might lead to convictions
for other offenses but cannot support a charge of attempted murder.
3.
The committed offense of murder must contain intent to kill, and it necessarily entails killing or
any other intention to complete that offense. Therefore, a trial to commit murder should not have
lesser intent.
Ratio Decidendi
The legal principle established in this case is that for an attempted murder charge, the mens rea
required is the specific intent to kill. A lesser intent, such as the intent to inflict harm, with a knowledge it
may cause death, is insufficient for an attempted murder conviction.
Dissent
Justice Ritchie dissented in this case, stating that to convict for attempt to kill, one must prove the
specific intent to kill, which was not covered by unintentional actions in the Criminal Code.
Obiter Dicta
There are no significant obiter dicta mentioned in this case brief.
“Title and Citation: Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, [1969] 1 QB 439 (CA)”
Facts
In the case of R v Fagan, a police officer requested the defendant to pull over his car for
questioning. During the process, Mr. Fagan (defendant) complied with the request
but He
unintentionally ran his vehicle over the police officer's foot
. This requested Mr. Fagan to move the
car off his foot, to which Mr. Fagan at the start refused, telling the constable to "wait." However, he
eventually accepted to move the car after a short time. Mr. Fagan was subsequently charged with
assaulting an officer based on statutory provision of defunct. The officer appealed this judgment, arguing
that he did not possess the mens rea (guilty mind) since there was no intend to harm the officer when he
drove over his foot.
Legal Issues
a. Did Mr. Fagan possess the mens rea to commit the offense during the time he completed the actus reus
(criminal act)?
b. Can battery occur as a result of using a weapon or an instrument that is in charge of a defendant?
Decision
The High Court validated Mr. Fagan's conviction. The Judges reasoned that Mr. Fagan's action
represented a continuing act because he intended to continue pressing constable's foot during the act.
Reasons
1.
The majority of the High Court found that it is not a must for a defendant to possess mens rea at
the onset of the actus reus.
2.
In cases with a continuing actus reus, it is possible to superimpose mens rea later to actualize the
offense.
3.
The court held that touching someone's foot in this manner constituted a continuing actus reus.
Additionally, the court established that battery could be committed with the aid of an instrument
which is under control of defendant, for instance a car.
Ratio Decidendi
The case establishes that in a continuing actus reus, mens rea can be superimposed later to complete the
offense. Besides, battery can be committed using controllable instruments.
Dissent
Justice Bridge dissented by demonstrating that pressing one’s foot for a while using an car must
be classified as an omission instead of a continuing act.
The Judge contended that the act should fall
under the exemption for not taking action. While he concurred with the court's decision on
possibility of continuing act, he distinguished Mr. Fagan's actions because they did not demand
any effort from the accused to maintain.
Obiter Dicta
This case has been cited in criminal and tort law, more specifically for the tort of battery due to
the similar definitions of battery and assault in the two contexts. Additionally, the case serves as authority
for understanding mens rea and actus reus of assault, defining assault reckless or any intentional act
causing the victim to anticipate unlawful and immediate personal violence.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Online References
The Queen v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225
Date: 1984-04-02 Retrieved from
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/2416/index.do#:~:text=The%20Crown%20contended%20in
%20this,212(a)(ii))
.
Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, [1969] 1 QB 439 (CA) Retrieved from
https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/fagan-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis/