R. v. Leuenberger, 2014 BCCA 156 (CanLII)
[74] A person cannot escape liability for conviction by believing she is doing nothing wrong. In Kingbsury, the Court observed:
[46] Théroux and its companion case, Zlatic, clarified that the test for mens rea of fraud should reflect traditional mens rea principles; the focus should be on the accused’s subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and the prohibited consequences that together compose the actus reus of the offence. But the majority also made it clear that a number of matters are not relevant to the mens rea. An honest belief that one’s conduct is not dishonest is irrelevant. An honest belief that one’s conduct is not wrong or a hope or expectation that no deprivation will occur is equally irrelevant.
[47] If it is sufficient to establish mens rea that an accused know the facts that objectively constitute a prohibited act such as deceit, and the accused’s subjective belief that the act is not deceitful is irrelevant, I fail to understand how an accused’s honest but mistaken belief that he is entitled to property can be relevant to the mens rea respecting deprivation. To allow an honest mistake about legal entitlement that if true would mean that there was no deprivation of something the victim was entitled to would not be consistent with the majority’s analysis in Théroux, that the requisite mens reabe connected to the prohibited act element of the offence of fraud.
[Emphasis added.]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire