R. V. Vaillancourt

Statement of the Case This is a formal request for an appeal against the ruling in the case of R . v. Vaillancourt. . Mr. Vaillancourt seeks to appeal the court’s decision based on the inconsistency with s.230(d) of the Criminal Code, and s. 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is present in this case, evident when Vaillancourt’s accomplice does not inform him of his plan to bring weapons to the crime scene, leading Vaillancourt to believe that his lack of knowledge of the presence of weapons should not constitute section 230 (d), as he believes that it imposes a certain degree of absolute criminal liability when it shouldn’t apply, as Vaillancourt had no mens rea present.

Summary of The Facts The accomplice of the appellant
In a case such as the aforementioned, it is of utmost importance to have some degree of subjective mens rea present as a principle of fundamental justice. Another applicable principle would be that a murder conviction cannot be made, be there absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least foreseeability to the likelihood of death, meaning that there must be some mental state to be achieved before a conviction can be made, In this case s.213(d) does not require objective foresight. All that is required is the mens rea of the offence at hand (intent to commit robbery) and the fact that a weapon is used at all in the first place. No mental elements or states are required. Again, All that must be confirmed is that the accused uses a weapon while committing a robbery even without the intent to commit murder and unknowing of the likelihood of death would be a result, nor objectively foreseeable. In addition, a reasonable person would have been unaware of the likelihood and foreseeability of death, considering the accused stated that they found the bullets that were taken out in a glove on the