CRIMINAL LAW

This paper, titled Sports Violence, Political Corruption, and Dangerous Driving was written March 15, 2006 for my UFV Crim 230 (Criminal Law) course taught by Peter German.

=====================================================================

INTRODUCTION

This paper will be covering the elements required to prove the actus reus (the act), the mens rea (the intent), and causation (the result of the action) with respect to criminal offenses.

The elements required to prove the actus reus, the mens rea and the causation are the conduct (a voluntary act or omission), the circumstances (without consent), the consequences (of the act), and the causation (the result of the criminal act). The topics covered in this paper are sports violence, political corruption, and dangerous driving, and what makes conduct in each of these issues a criminal matter.

SPORTS VIOLENCE

R. v. Bertuzzi (2005)

Vancouver Canucks all-star Todd Bertuzzi sucker punched Colorado Avalanche rookie Steve Moore with a punch from behind on March 8, 2004 (INDEPTH: THE BERTUZZI INCIDENT, A star player goes offside, CBC Sports On Line, February 15, 2005).

Moore crumpled to the ice, and was hospitalized with three broken vertebrae in his neck and a concussion (CBC Sports On Line, 2005).

What makes this conduct criminal? First let’s analyze the conduct. Bertuzzi came up behind Moore and punched him, knocking Moore to the ice. The conduct is assault. The circumstance is that this assault was done without consent. The consequence was harmful to the victim. The causation was three broken vertebrae due to the sucker punch.

To determine whether or not the action of Todd Bertuzzi is a criminal offence we first must define what an assault is. According to section 265 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada “Assault” an assault is when “A person commits an assault when, (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly.”

In the case of R. v. Bertuzzi (2005) proving all the required elements for a conviction was actually quite easy as the assault was caught on camera during a game that the accused and the victim were participants. However, in the absence of the taped assault another way to prove the elements are by utilizing witnesses. To prove the element of the actus reus (the act) we look at the action or actions of the accused.

The accused came up behind the victim and sucker punched the victim in the back of the neck. To prove the element of the mens rea (the intent) we analyze what led up to the action of the accused. The accused purposely came up behind the victim, thus enters the intent. Now we look at the causation, the injury due to the assault. The assault caused the victim to suffer three broken vertebrae in his neck and a concussion.

In conclusion, the elements of the actus reus and the mens rea proved that there was a criminal offence. The result? Criminal charges filed against Bertuzzi in Vancouver resulted in a guilty plea and a sentence of one year's probation plus 80 hours of community service (R. v. Bertuzzi [2005]).

POLITICAL CORRUPTION

R. v. McKitka (1982)

The accused, the town’s mayor misled a constituent as to the value of the constituent’s land and endeavoured to procure it for himself for personal profit. The work of a public servant must be a real service in which no concealed pecuniary self-interest should bias the judgment of the officer and in which the substantial truth of every transaction should be made to appear (R. v. McKitka [1982]).

Section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada “Breach of Trust by Public Officer” covers one of many offences in regard to political corruption. Section 122 states that “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.”

The definition of fraud, according to section 380 of the Canadian Criminal Code is deceit or falsehood. The definition of breach of trust, according to the Criminal Code is an act or failure to do an act contrary to the duties imposed upon the public official.

The conduct in this matter was that the accused was dishonest and misled the victim. The circumstance was that the accused knowingly defrauded the victim, and the consequence was that the victim was deprived of what was or should have been his.

DANGEROUS DRIVING

R. v. Bhalru and R. v. Khosa (2002)

In November 2000 Bahadur Singh Bhalru and Sukhvir Singh Khosa were street racing on the streets of Richmond. In the process, an innocent pedestrian, Irene Thorpe was struck and killed.

On October 18, 2002 Bhalru and Khosa were each found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of Irene Thorpe. During the four-day sentencing hearing in British Columbia Supreme Court, Crown Counsel submitted that a penitentiary term of imprisonment was the proper sentence for each of these offenders given the seriousness of the offence (G. Plant, personal communication, February 27, 2003).

On February 3, 2003, Bhalru and Khosa were sentenced to conditional sentences of imprisonment of two years less a day (G. Plant, 2003).

What makes this conduct criminal? First let’s analyze the conduct. The two accused were street racing on the public streets of Richmond contrary to city traffic speed zones. The conduct is street racing. The circumstance is that the accused were operating their motor vehicles in an unsafe manner. The consequence was harmful to the victim. The causation: the victim was struck and killed by a motor vehicle. To determine whether or not the actions of Bhalru and Khosa is a criminal offence we first must define what dangerous driving is.

According to section 249(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code “Dangerous Operation of Motor Vehicle” is when “Every one commits an offence who operates, (a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place.”

Section 249(4) goes on to say, “Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” In the case of R. v. Bhalru and R. v. Khosa (2002) proving all the required elements for a conviction was based on evidence compiled by the police.

To prove the element of the actus reus (the act) we look at the actions of the accused. The accused were operating their motor vehicles on the streets of Richmond in an unsafe manner. To prove the element of the mens rea (the intent) we analyze what led up to the actions of the accused.

The accused purposely raced their vehicles, thus enters the intent. Now we look at the causation, injuries to the victim when hit by the speeding vehicle resulted in death. In conclusion, the elements of the actus reus and the mens rea proved that there was a criminal offence.

The result? Criminal charges filed against Bhalru and Khosa resulted in a conviction and a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community on each accused (R. v. Bhalru & R. v. Khosa [2002]).

REFERENCES

INDEPTH: THE BERTUZZI INCIDENT, A star player goes offside, CBC Sports On Line, February 15, 2005

R. v. Bertuzzi (2005)

R. v. Bhalru and R. v. Khosa (2002)

R. v. McKitka (1982)