R. v. Smillie, 1998 CanLII 7050 (BC CA)
[35] The offence which we are dealing with in the case at bar does not require negligence as part of the actus reus. The regulations in question specify particular action, to store handguns in accordance with a certain standard. The offence does not consist of a failure to take reasonable precautions in response to a general duty to take care, it is the failure to store in accordance with the standards dictated by the regulations which constitutes the offence. The manner of storage is prescribed by statute, not judged by reasonable person standards. For this offence it is irrelevant that the accused has failed to turn his mind to the risk inherent in the careless storage of firearms. Failure to advert to a risk does not form part of the mens rea of this offence. The only duty placed upon the accused is to do what the regulations require. He cannot avoid his duty by proclaiming that he has found an equally safe, or even better way to store his handguns.
[36] The difference is important. In cases where negligence forms a part of the actus reus, the Crown must prove negligence as part of its case (a marked departure from the standard of reasonableness). In the case at bar the Crown need not prove negligence or carelessness to obtain a conviction, only that the handguns were stored in any way other than in accordance with the regulations. Although the offence does not require proof of negligence, it does allow a defence of due diligence. The accused may avoid liability if he raises a reasonable doubt that he took reasonable steps to prevent the event that forms the basis of the charge from happening. The offence is thus one of strict liability bearing the classic features of a regulatory offence, or "penal" offence as described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wholesale Travel, supra.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire