Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
418
R v. Beatty
R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5
BC Court of Appeals
Procedural History
1. The accused was charged with three counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code.
11. The trial judge found Beatty could not be held responsible for dangerous driving under the circumstances of a few seconds of negligence.
-he was acquitted on all three accounts.
111. The decision was reversed and a new trial was ordered by the BC Court of Appeals because they believed the original trial judge asked the wrong question.
-BC Court of Appeal wanted to know if a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have considered the risks of his conduct
Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death
S. 249(4)
The Facts
-Justin Ronald Beatty was driving home from work on a hot, sunny day.
-His pick up truck crossed the double-yellow line and hit an oncoming car, killing three people
-Beatty states that he had fallen asleep/ lost consciousness which led to the accident (possible sun stroke?)
-He was not intoxicated
-There was no mechanical failure in the vehicle
-Witnesses: He had been driving normally up until he crossed the line
Issues to be decided
Issues
- Was this momentary act of negligence (losing consciousness) enough to convict Beatty for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
- Does losing consciousness while driving (due to possible heat stroke) qualify as a foreseeable risk that a reasonable person in a similar situation might predict? Was there a marked departure in his actions from the standard duty of care required to drive a vehicle?
- Does this case satisfy the terms of objective mens rea?
Quick Overview...
The crown must prove that actus reus and mens rea was present beyond a reasonable doubt.
*Actus Reus: "An event or state that was caused by the accused's conduct"
Holding
*Mens Rea: "the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime"
Criminal Negligence: "reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others (causing bodily harm)"
*The exception to actus reus is when the action occurs involuntary.
Two Part Test of Objective Liability
Circumstances of the accused
Knowledge of the accused
1. "In light of all relevant evidence, a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk + taken steps to avoid it if possible."
Objective Mens Rea
2. "Whether the accused`s failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, was a marked departure from the standard care expected of a reasonable person in the accused circumstances."
Decision of the court
Actus reus?
Decision of the court
Mens rea?
Not Guilty
Reasons for their decision
Actus Reus:
Was proved due to the objectively dangerous nature of the act. The car had crossed the double yellow line, proceeding to hit and kill three people.
Reasons for their decision
Mens Rea:
In order to prove mens rea, the crown must provide evidence that the accused displayed a state of mind that marked a departure from the standard duty of care. In this case, Beatty did not meet the mens rea criteria due to the fact that a reasonable person would also not consider their actions (going unconscious) to be a foreseeable risk.
-Beatty had not shown evidence of reckless driving up until the moment of lost consciousness, therefore it was deemed to be out of his control; no intention.
Ratio Decidendi
Criminal law is not always the correct response to dangerous conduct
Ratio
Accidents happen!
Questions for the class
I. Could you argue that the actus reus is not applicable in Beatty's case, due to the exception* of actus reus?
->*when the action occurs involuntary
II. Can you distinguish the difference between criminal law and civil law, and why do you think Beatty should be found guilty under criminal, civil, or both?
-(or neither?)
Questions
III. Do you think that Mr. Beatty's circumstances are similar to those who suffer a heart attack while driving, ending in the same situation, or is there more fault found in Mr. Beatty's case?