|
''R v Hibbert'', () 2 SCR 973, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on aiding and abetting and the defence of duress in criminal law. The court held that duress is capable of negating the ''mens rea'' for some offences, but not for aiding the commission of an offence under s. 21(1)(b) of the ''Criminal Code''. Nonetheless, duress can still function as an excuse-based defence. ==Background== On November 25, 1991, Fitzroy Cohen was shot four times with a semi-automatic handgun in the lobby of the apartment building he lived in. The shots were fired by Mark Bailey, an acquaintance of Cohen's. Cohen had been aware that Bailey was seeking revenge for an incident in the previous year in which Bailey had been robbed by a rival drug dealer while Cohen and others stood by watching and laughing. Bailey was led to Cohen's apartment by the accused, Lawrence Hibbert, who was a close friend of Cohen. On the night of the shooting, Hibbert accidentally ran into Bailey, and was threatened with a handgun to bring Bailey to Cohen's apartment. Hibbert was also ordered to call Cohen to meet him in the lobby of the apartment. Hibbert made no effort to intervene, and claimed that he had no opportunity to run away or warn Cohen. He was later driven from the scene by Bailey. Cohen survived the shooting, but Bailey was never caught. Hibbert turned himself in the next day and was charged with attempted murder as party to the offence. At trial, Hibbert was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of aggravated assault. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide the applicability of the defence of duress in the context of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence under s. 21(1)(b) of the ''Criminal Code''. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Hibbert」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|