Date: Monday March 31 and Tuesday April 1, 2025
Title: Movie Monday and Trial Tuesday: Just Mercy
*reminder: your human rights posters are DUE TOMORROW (you will show them to a small group)
In your notebook: While you watch, over the next two days, take notes on the following roles in Just Mercy:
- What do they do during the trial? What responsibilities do they seem to have? Are they doing a good job? Are they reliable?
· Judge –
· Prosecutor (Crown Counsel equivalent) – Tommy Chapman
· Defense Counsel – Bryan Stevenson
· Sheriff – Sheriff Tom Tate
· Jurors –
· The Accused – Walter McMillian
· Witnesses:
o Ralph Myers –
o Bill Hooks –
o Joe Hightower –
o Karen Kelly –
o Darnell Houston –
o Walter McMillian’s family and community members
Date: Wednesday April 2, 2025
Title: Write Wednesday- Human Rights Poster Presentation
Human Rights Posters- small groups and peer evaluated (by 2 students)
- Anyone who is not finished can spend today working on it and show it on flex day next week
Textbook Questions: Before Friday, it would be good to complete questions 1-5 on page 123 and questions 1-5 on page 130 as this information will be helpful for the case we’re looking at.
Date: Thursday April 3, 2025
Title: Think Thursday- Criminal law, types of offences, R. v. Parks (1992)
Info sheet- Actus Reus and Mens Rea
In notebook:
1. Actus Reus:
2. Mens Rea:
3. Summary offences:
4. Indictable offences:
5. Hybrid offences:
Kenneth Park case, answer questions 1-4 p125 in notebook with a partner, discuss as a class
Case of Kenneth Park (05:26): https://youtu.be/AuWAkREjl6U
Date: Friday April 4, 2025
Title: Finish up Friday- Recklessness vs Willful Blindness, R. v. Williams (2003) debate
Notes:
Recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur,
Willful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.
Read the R. v. Williams (2003) case p128.
Discuss questions with a partner or small group.
Also consider:
R v Cuerrier (1998)
R v Williams (2003)
R. v. Smith (2007)
R. v. Mabior (2012)
R v D.C. (2012)
R v Hutchinson (2014)
2018 Federal Justice Directive
Research the Trevis Smith case: another example of an HIV related aggravated sexual assault case involved former CFL athlete Trevis Smith. A review of the decision (sentenced to five and a half years in 2007 and was paroled in 2010) can be found here at CBC News.
R.v. Mabior: R. v. Mabior - SCC Cases In its 2012 Mabior decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held: HIV is indisputably serious and life-endangering. Although it can be controlled by medication, HIV remains an incurable chronic infection that, if untreated, can result in death. As such, the failure to advise a sexual partner of one’s HIV status may lead to a conviction for aggravated sexual assault under s. 273(1) of the Criminal Code.
In HIV non-disclosure cases, the criminal law applies where a person who knows they are HIV positive and infectious, transmits HIV to others or exposes others to a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” without affording their sexual partner the opportunity to choose whether to assume that risk. Specifically, courts have found that a complainant’s consent to sexual activity may be vitiated, or not obtained in law, if the accused misrepresented or failed to disclose their HIV status prior to that activity. In such circumstances, the assault (sections 266 to 268) or sexual assault (sections 271 to 273) offences have been applied. Note: Most HIV non-disclosure cases have involved aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault charges, because contracting HIV has been considered to endanger the life of that person. Canada’s Criminal Code allows for a charge of aggravated sexual assault if the complainant doesn’t know what is being consented to, and if the complainant’s life is endangered by the accused. Criminal negligence causing bodily harm (section 221), and common nuisance (section 180) have also been applied in HIV non-disclosure cases.
In terms of Willful Blindness, because of the Sansregret case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the concepts of recklessness and willful blindness are not the same and that it is wise to keep the two concepts separate. The court then defined each concept as follows (Stuart: 211):
Recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur,
Willful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.
video (17:53): Wilful Blindness vs. Recklessness
Debate: It should be considered aggravated (sexual) assault if a person knowingly living with HIV engages in sexual activity without disclosing their status to their partner.
*back up your opinion with the precedents set by the above cases and the criminal code laws below.
Criminal Code:
Aggravated assault
· 268 (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
Assault
· 265 (1) A person commits an assault when
o (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
o (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
o (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Attempts
· 24 (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.
Full offence charged, attempt proved
· 660 Where the complete commission of an offence charged is not proved but the evidence establishes an attempt to commit the offence, the accused may be convicted of the attempt.