Robson Crim Legal Blog

This case, R v Ahmad, involves the question of entrapment in the modern era - in short what constitutes police entrapment when they are talking over cell phones and how should the court handle these cases? The decision was split five to four, and the majority ruled that the police need to reasonably suspect that a person answering a phone is involved in criminal activity before offering that person the opportunity to commit a crime.

Section 320.13 (3) of the Criminal Code states that “everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person”. From this, it is clear that the actus reus of dangerous driving is driving in a manner dangerous to the public. However, what about the mens rea, the mental element, of dangerous driving?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently delivered its verdict in the Dominic Ongwen trial. The trial received quite a bit of attent

Protecting the rights of individuals who are accused of horrific acts is an integral part of our criminal law system in Canada. Defending sexual assault is a very complicated task, even if it seems the defence is simple in itself. Honest but mistaken belief is one such defence, precedent is set at the Supreme Court of Canada for this as per Ewanchuk. Every case of sexual assault is different.

Mandatory minimum sentences reflect and uphold a long-standing ‘tough on crime’ approach to sentencing and the criminal justice system as a whole. This approach values punishment over rehabilitation and is mostly concerned with ensuring that criminals pay for what they have done to their victims. Mandatory minimums impair the court’s ability to implement sentences on an individual basis—prioritizing the objectives of denouncement and retribution over the implementation of pro