Criminal law is about creating security. But in the current circumstances, does it make sense to introduce some flexibility and make political contributions to what is or is not a reasonable excuse? So we have a legal instrument that operates under the threat of criminal sanctions, that restricts people to their homes, except in certain circumstances and other circumstances that may be reasonable. What is reasonable can be set out in ministerial directives. Presumably, the opposite is true: if ministerial directives say something is unreasonable, then a defendant has difficulty arguing otherwise. Examples of permissible reasons for leaving home also show that “reasonable excuse” is used in a slightly different way. In the context of a violation of HMO business rules, violations are always a bad thing – defending a reasonable excuse only serves to prevent any violation from constituting a criminal offense. But on the other hand, there is no moral culpability in buying essentials during the COVID-19 lockdown. You`ll rely on a reasonable excuse, but you don`t really apologize – you`re doing something completely normal. (2) The burden of proof that any legal objection, exemption, reservation, excuse or characterization works in favour of the accused rests with the defendant and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the objection, exemption, reservation, excuse or characterization does not work in favour of the accused, whether or not it is set out in the denunciation. R.S., c. C-34, p. 730.
An alleged reason to do or not to do something. This word represents two ideas that are substantially different from each other. In one case, an excuse may be given for the fact that the accused is not guilty; In another, by showing that he is guilty, but less guilty than he seems. Take, for example, the case of a sheriff who executes a person and arrests him in the performance of his duties; In a lawsuit brought by the defendant against the sheriff, he can prove the facts, and that should be a sufficient excuse for him: it is an apology of the first kind or a complete justification; The sheriff is not guilty of any crime. But second, suppose the sheriff has an execution against Paul and accidentally and maliciously arrests Peter instead of Paul; The fact that he had the execution against Paul and the mistake that was made will not justify the sheriff, but it will soften and excuse his behavior, and it will be an excuse of the second kind. 3. Persons are sometimes excused for committing acts that are normally crimes, either because they did not intend to do wrong or because they had no power of judgment and therefore had no criminal intent (sa.); or to have the power, to judge, they had no choice and were forced out of necessity. The first category may include infants under the age of discretion, lunatics, and married women who commit a crime of treason or murder in the presence of their husbands, not even per se; 1 Hale`s P.C. 44, 45 or for crimes related to family interest or home administration, such as running a rudimentary house.
Rapacious. B. 1, C. 1, p. 12. Acts of the second type may consist of beating or killing another person in self-defence; the destruction of property to prevent a more serious misfortune than the demolition of a burning house to prevent it from spreading to the neighboring property, etc. See Dalloz, Dict. H.T.
The third category of “reasonable excuse”, which is not explicitly mentioned in any case law because it is more of a matter of practice, arises when the notice refers to large amounts of irrelevant and/or incriminating documents that it would be impossible to compile the documents within a reasonable time. In these circumstances, reasonable discussions with the examiner should result in the withdrawal of the original communication and the issuance of a new, narrower notice requiring the submission of a more restricted and/or relevant set of documents. “It is for the judge to decide whether the facts that a defendant believes are suitable, if proven, to constitute a defence of reasonable excuse. It is for the jury to decide whether he or she has been convicted and, if so, whether it is a reasonable excuse in the circumstances of the case, with the burden of proof resting on the defendant after weighing the probabilities. A “reasonable apology” can be a full defence to crimes that explicitly require no reasonable apology. [1] This section identified four categories of “reasonable excuses” that would legitimately allow a recipient to refuse to disclose records requested by a criminal investigator under mandatory notice of the production of records. Is the scope of the “reasonable excuse” doctrine different when the criminal investigator forces a person to answer questions during an interview? Under what circumstances could the interviewee legitimately refuse to answer questions at a mandatory hearing? This will be the subject of a second article. The case law – all of which refer to the SFO`s powers under the YSA and not to the equivalent powers of other investigators – offers some guidance to answer this question and define the parameters of this fourth category of “reasonable excuses.” The starting point is that the courts have long recognized that the CJA is a draconian law and that Section 2`s specific enforcement power is far-reaching. In Hamilton et al., Respondent/Naviede Appellant, the House of Lords held that if a statute (such as the CJA) criminalizes the non-disclosure of documents “without reasonable excuse” and the purpose of the Act is to permit urgent intervention by an investigator, the duty to disclose the records takes precedence over any competing duty of confidentiality. In Omega Group Holdings Ltd v.
Kozeny, the Court of Appeal expanded on the analysis in Re Arrows Ltd. and Hamilton and provided further guidance on this fourth category of “reasonable excuses”. The issue was whether the fact that documents were brought before the court for disclosure by a foreign defendant in civil proceedings constituted a “reasonable excuse” for not complying with an order to submit them to the SFO. The Court recognized that, in these circumstances, two public interests had come into conflict: the public interest in investigating serious fraud and the public interest in administering civil justice. The court disagreed with the SFO`s assertion that the recipient of a communication had only a “reasonable excuse” for not complying with it in the rare cases identified in Re Arrows Ltd as “national security, diplomatic relations and central government administration”. However, on the facts of this case, there is no “reasonable excuse” since the public interest in investigating or prosecuting serious or complex fraud takes precedence over the courts` simple concern to control the collateral use of forcibly disclosed documents. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that an important consideration was the absence of any particular reason to fear that disclosure would result in unfairness. Ignorance of a “fact” may give rise to a reasonable apology, but as noted above, the courts are skeptical about it. It is even more difficult to rely on ignorance of the law as a defence to a reasonable apology. Crimes subject to the reasonable excuse defense include: It is an oft-cited aphorism that “ignorance of the law is not an excuse,” and sometimes it has been cited as a reason why the reasonable excuse defense may not be available in such circumstances. We see no basis for this argument.
Some requirements of the law are known, simple and direct, others are much less so. For the purposes of the FTT, the Commission will decide on a case-by-case basis whether it was objectively reasonable for the taxpayer concerned, in the circumstances of the case, not to have knowledge of the requirement in question and for how long. In general, a reasonable apology means an apology that an ordinary, prudent member of the community would accept as reasonable in the circumstances. Failure must not simply be a deliberate act of non-compliance. For example, if the circumstance that prevented a person from complying with the requirement was unforeseeable or beyond their control, this is a reasonable excuse.