On Reasonable Liability

— Prologue.- One — Summary Notes on the Criminal Law of Canada.- One — Introduction.- Two — Canadian Common Law.- A. Common Law.- a) Definitions.- b) Common Law Countries.- c) Common Law in Canada.- d) The Law of Torts.- B. Resume of Common Law History.- a) Introduction.- b) The Period before 1066 A.D..- c) William The Conqueror.- d) The Period after William.- 1) Royal Power.- 2) King and Nobility.- 3) Parliament.- 4) The Church.- 5) The Commoners.- C. The Court System.- a) The Common Law Courts.- b) The Residuary Courts.- c) The Writ System.- d) Equity.- e) Sources of the Common Law.- 1) Customary Law.- 2) Statute Law.- 3) Judge-made Law.- 4) Academic Writing.- D. Sources of and Influences on the Common Law.- a) Ancient Customary Law.- b) Roman Law.- c) Canon Law.- Three — Dutch Civil Law.- A. Civil Law.- A. Civil Law.- a) Definitions.- b) Civil Law Countries.- c) Civil Law in The Netherlands.- B. Resume of the History of Dutch Law.- a) Introduction.- b) The French Occupation.- c) Separation of The Netherlands and Belgium.- C. Sources of Dutch Law.- a) Ancient Customary Law.- b) Statute Law.- c) Judge-made Law.- d) Academic Writing.- D. Sources of and Influences on Dutch Law.- a) Source of Law.- b) Ancient Customary Law.- c) Roman Law.- d) Canon Law.- e) Continental Civil Law.- Four — Legislative Powers in Canada.- A. Legislatures.- a) Distribution of Legislative Power.- 1) The British N.-America Act.- 2) Assignment of Legislative Power.- 3) The Dispute between the Federal and Provincial Governments.- 4) Parliament.- b) Criminal Law.- 1) ‘True’ Criminal Law.- 2) ‘Quasi’-Criminal Law.- 3) The Canadian Criminal Code.- 4) Criticisms on the Code.- 5) The Law Reform Commission of Canada.- c) Legislator and Judiciary.- 1) Statute and Case Law.- 2) Legislator and Case Law.- 3) The Statute Prevails.- B. The Courts.- a) Judges create Law....- b)... but are bound.- c) Genesis of a Judgment.- d) The Concept of ‘Stare Decisis’.- e) Statutes, though accessory, are binding.- Five — The Judiciary.- a) The Supreme Court of Canada.- b) The Courts Below.- 1) Courts with Civil Jurisdiction.- 2) Courts with Criminal Jurisdiction.- 3) A New Approach: from Accused to Defendant.- Six — Sources of Canadian Criminal Law.- A. The Canadian Criminal Code.- a) Historical Notes.- b) English Common Law still in Force in Canada?.- c) Organization of The Code.- d) Quasi-criminal Offences.- Seven — Basic Notions.- A. Semantics.- a) The Forbidden Conduct: ‘Aotus Reus’.- b) The Mental Element: ‘Mens Rea’.- c) Commission.- d) Omission.- e) Partyship.- 1) The Direct Participant.- 2) The Indirect Participant.- (i) Instrumental Person.- (ii) Aiders, Abettors.- (iii) Counsellors.- 3) Cooperation after Completion of an Offence.- f) Inchoate Offences.- 1) Incitement.- 2) Counselling.- 3) Criminal Attempt.- 4) The Impossible Attempt.- Eight — The Qualifying Factors.- A. Introduction — Semantics.- B. Actus Reus.- C. Mens Rea.- a) Mens Rea — Dolus.- b) Mens Rea — Wilful Blindness.- c) Mens Rea — Recklessness.- d) Included Offences — Specific Intent.- e) Mens Rea — Criminal Negligence.- f) Attribution of Mens Rea.- 1) Homicide.- 2) Murder.- 3) Rape.- 4) Robbery.- 5) Arson.- 6) Manslaughter.- 7) Callous Disregard as Malice.- 8) Imputed Mens Rea.- 9) The Principle of Legality.- Nine — The Disqualifying Factors Grounds for Impunity.- A. General Notes.- B. Classification of Defences.- a) The Excuses.- 1) Age.- 2) Insanity.- 3) Necessity.- 4) Compulsion or Duress.- b) Justification.- 1) Performance of Legal Duty.- 2) Exercise of a Legal Right.- 3) Obedience to a Lawfully given Order.- 4) Consent.- c) Denial Defences.- 1) Lack of Mens Rea.- (i) Automatism.- (ii) Somnambulism.- (iii) Drunkenness.- 2) Violation of the Principle of Legality.- 3) Mistake and Ignorance.- Ten — Negligence.- A. Negligence in the Criminal Law.- a) Negligence Defined.- b) Degrees of Negligence?.- c) Negligence and Intention.- d) Casus or Accident.- B. Negligence in Tort Law.- Eleven — Causality.- A. Causality Defined.- B. Today’s View.- Twelve — Reasonable Attribution of Liability.- A. Introduction.- a) The Dutch Viewpoint?.- B. The Fatal Chain.- a) Actor — Conduct — Consequence — Liability?.- b) Exit Foreseeability?.- c) Post Quod or Propter Quod?.- d) Reactions.- e) Towards Strict or Absolute Liability?.- Thirteen — Criminal Liability.- Two — On Reasonaple Liability.- One — Strict Liability.- A. Introduction.- B. Preliminary Remarks.- C. Semantics.- a) Guilt means Schuld?.- b) Culpa means Schuld?.- c) Culpa equals Schuld equals Negligence.- D. Different Approaches.- Two — Strict Liability in Dutch Criminal Law.- A. Narrowing the Issues.- a) When is an Offence one of Strict Liability?.- b) Quest for a Dutch Term.- c) Negligence/Culpa Recklessness/Roekeloosheid/ Rashness?.- Three — Some Fictions in Common Law.- A. Echos from the Past.- B. Strict Liability and Real Crime.- a) Homicide.- b) Criminal Negligence.- c) The Generally Wicket Spirit.- d) Strict Responsibility in Dutch Law.- e) Probability of Risk.- f) Dolus Generalis.- C. Offences Qualified by their Consequences.- a) Secondary Consequences.- b) Pack to Causality.- c) Hindsight as Foresight?.- Four — Strict Responsibility and Penal Offences.- A. Introductory Remarks.- B. Culpa Lata before The Courts.- a) Medical Cases.- b) Highway Traffic and other Cases.- c) Interference by Third Parties.- d) The Problem of the Unknown Driver.- 1) In The Netherlands.- 2) In Canada.- e) The Proof of Culpa Lata.- Five — An Aside with Respect to Evidence.- A. Circumstantial Evidence.- B. ... used too liberally?.- Six — The Res Ipsa Argument.- A. Res Ipsa Loquitur.- B. The Problem of Proving.- C. Polarized Evidence?.- Seven — Justification of Punishment for Negligence.- Eight — The Case in Favor and Against Strict Responsibility.- A. Arguments in Favor.- B. Arguments Against.- C. Is Strict Responsibility Acceptable?.- D. Expert Conduct.- E. Garantenstellung.- F. Role Playing.- Nine — Separating the Strict from the Absolute.- A. Clarity of Terms.- B. Preventing Incidents from becoming Bad Habits.- Ten — The Halfway House Doctrine.- A. A Premium on Diligence.- B. Diligence Must be Proven.- Eleven — Due Diligence Before the Courts.- Twelve — In Defence of Due Diligence.- A. Introductory Remarks.- B. Impossibility.- C. Compulsion or Duress.- D. Necessity.- E. Ignorance and Mistake of Fact.- F. Ignorance and Mistake of Law.- Thirteen — The AVAS Defence.- A. Diligence means No Fault At All.- B. Selected Cases on AVAS.- Fourteen — The Defence of Due Diligence in Canadian Criminal Law.- A. Introductory Discussion.- B. After the Sault Ste Marie Decision.- C. Recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.- D. Absolute Liability Has Its Place.- - Epilogue.- - Samenvatting.- - Footnotes.- Table of Cases.- Common Law Cases.- Dutch Case Law.- Curriculum Vitae.