Presentation on theme: "R. v. Harding et al., 2006 BCSC (CanLII) Use [#] on your handout to help guide you in answering the questions."— Presentation transcript:
R. v. Harding et al., 2006 BCSC (CanLII) Use [#] on your handout to help guide you in answering the questions
 What is the charge? What court would this be tried in? How do you know?
Read  through  Create a point form timeline of the events Create a list of people and their involvement In doing this you are developing a “theory of the case” – to understand the “story”
 Mr. Harding admits to having a struggle with Mr. Moss. What type of defence is Mr. Harding trying to use to justify his actions?
34(1) – Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force is the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. Read the autopsy evidence (warning: it is graphic, you may skip this reading if you feel it will be upsetting) Would you be satisfied considering this evidence that Mr. Harding was acting in self- defence? Why or why not?
 What 3 circumstances does the defence want the court to consider when thinking of whether there is any reasonable doubt on the question of intention?
 When using the defence of self-defence, is it the Defence’s job to prove self- defence or the Crown’s job to disprove it? What does the judge identify as the central issues for determination? 
What are the two requisite intentions necessary to ground a conviction for murder? 
Read  –  Did Mr. Harding need to defend himself from Mr. Moss? Do you see any evidence in this section that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Harding’s actions were self-defence as outlined in section 34(1)?
 Does the judge accept the defence of self-defence? What does he say?  –  What evidence does the judge identify to show that Harding was not significantly intoxicated as to not be able to act purposefully?
 –  What evidence does the judge identify to show that Mr. Harding’s emotional condition could not justify a charge of manslaughter?
 –  What does the judge list as reasons that he cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the bat seen by Mr. Pretty was used to strike Mr. Moss?
 –  What does the judge list as reasons that he cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peers assaulted Mr. Moss?  The judge is now considering whether Mr. Peers was “party to the offence.” What does this mean? (use your glossary)
 What 4 things does the judge say the Crown would have to prove in order for Mr. Peers to be found guilty of party to the offence?  What is the final thing that the Crown would have to prove? Was the judge satisfied that the Crown proved this? What does he say?
 What do YOU think it means to say manslaughter is an included offence in the offence of murder?  What would the Crown have to prove in order to find Mr. Peers guilty of manslaughter?
 Is the judge satisfied that the Crown has proved Mr. Peers guilty of manslaughter?
Final Questions! What was the outcome of this case for Mr. Harding and for Mr. Peers? Was a jury involved in this case? How do you know? Why do you think the accused would have selected to be tried by judge alone in this case?