R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179
[46] Historically, courts have used the term “motive” when describing this purpose element: R. v. Williams (1762), 97 E.R. 851 (K.B.); R. v. Borron (1820), 106 E.R. 721 (K.B.). In truth, this is an imprecise use of the term “motive”. As the trial judge explained, motive describes why the accused acted as they did. “Motive” is “what induces a person to act”: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 7th ed. The same dictionary defines “purpose” as the “object to be attained, thing intended”, and so, purpose may not be the same as motive. For example, a person’s purpose in using corporate resources may be to complete work on their property, but their motive may be financial: see R. v. Bradt, 2010 CMAC 2, 414 N.R. 219.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire