Why Scarlett Was Killed In The US
1. Withdrawal of money not belonging to Scarlett
Scarlett Scofflaw could be charged under s 322(1), Theft under the Criminal Code. Scarlett could be charged with theft because she knew the money in her account was not hers, yet spent the money anyway. Scarlett should have contacted the bank immediately when she noticed the extra money that appeared in her account. Scarlett would have to prove that she deposited the money into her account, however; the bank mistakenly transferred the money into Scarlett’s account, proving that the money was not Scarlett’s. Section 334 (a), Scarlett could be convicted of an indictable offence because the amount she spent was exceeding $5,000.00. Therefore, I believe there Scarlett could be convicted of theft.
2. Passenger in a stolen vehicle
When Scarlett decided to get into Mary’s car, Scarlett had suspected something was going on, previously being aware that Mary had little money to her name. When Mary told Scarlett not to ask any questions and to look out for the cops, Scarlett could have known that the vehicle was stolen property. Because Scarlett would have been aware the vehicle did not belong to Mary, Scarlett could be convicted under s 335, Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent, under the …show more content…
Criminal Code. I believe that Scarlett will be convicted under s 335 because she knew that her friend could not afford a $60,000 vehicle. Mary also indicated for Scarlett to keep a lookout for the police. s 335 states “Charges may also be laid against occupants who were aware the vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent or did not try to leave when they became aware of this fact”. Under s 21(1), Scarlett was aiding Mary to commit the offence. Scarlett would have to prove she had no idea that the vehicle was not Mary’s.
3. Assault Conviction
I believe Scarlett will be convicted of assault because assault is a general intent offence. Scarlett will not be able to use intoxication as a defence because the offence was assault. Section 33.1 states that a person who was self-inducing intoxicated cannot use the defence of intoxication if the offence has an element of assault or any threat to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person. In order for Scarlett to use intoxication as a defence, the offence she had committed could not have been assault and that she committed the offence due to automatism. However, Scarlett cannot use this defence of automatism because the offence involved assault and violence. Therefore, Scarlett will be convicted of assault under the Criminal Code for physically assaulting her boyfriend while she was intoxicated.
4. Assault with a weapon charge
Section 467 of the Criminal Code, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, states that every one, in committing an assault, carries a weapon or who causes bodily harm to the complainant is guilty of an indictable offence.
Scarlett will not be able to use the defence of provocation, s 232 under the Criminal Code. Provocation can only be used as a defence under a murder charge. Furthermore, provocation is only a partial defence, allowing the accused to be convicted of a lesser charge. Scarlett threw the trophy, which she used as a weapon, at her boyfriend and injured him. Since Scarlett is unable to use provocation as a defence, she will be convicted of assault with a weapon or causing bodily
harm.
5. Representation of Scarlett on assault with a weapon charge
Although the Crown has stated its intentions of proceeding by summary conviction and only asking the court for a 30-day sentence, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, s 467, is out of the scope of practice for paralegals in Ontario. Section 467of the Criminal Code is out of the scope of practice for paralegals because the maximum imprisonment under a summary conviction is a term not exceeding 18 months. The Law Society of Ontario authorized paralegals to represent someone in Small Claims Court, in Provincial Offences and on summary conviction offences where the maximum penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine. Therefore, I will not be able to represent Scarlett as a licensed paralegal, for her charge of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm.
Scarlett Scofflaw could be charged under s 322(1), Theft under the Criminal Code. Scarlett could be charged with theft because she knew the money in her account was not hers, yet spent the money anyway. Scarlett should have contacted the bank immediately when she noticed the extra money that appeared in her account. Scarlett would have to prove that she deposited the money into her account, however; the bank mistakenly transferred the money into Scarlett’s account, proving that the money was not Scarlett’s. Section 334 (a), Scarlett could be convicted of an indictable offence because the amount she spent was exceeding $5,000.00. Therefore, I believe there Scarlett could be convicted of theft.
2. Passenger in a stolen vehicle
When Scarlett decided to get into Mary’s car, Scarlett had suspected something was going on, previously being aware that Mary had little money to her name. When Mary told Scarlett not to ask any questions and to look out for the cops, Scarlett could have known that the vehicle was stolen property. Because Scarlett would have been aware the vehicle did not belong to Mary, Scarlett could be convicted under s 335, Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent, under the …show more content…
Criminal Code. I believe that Scarlett will be convicted under s 335 because she knew that her friend could not afford a $60,000 vehicle. Mary also indicated for Scarlett to keep a lookout for the police. s 335 states “Charges may also be laid against occupants who were aware the vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent or did not try to leave when they became aware of this fact”. Under s 21(1), Scarlett was aiding Mary to commit the offence. Scarlett would have to prove she had no idea that the vehicle was not Mary’s.
3. Assault Conviction
I believe Scarlett will be convicted of assault because assault is a general intent offence. Scarlett will not be able to use intoxication as a defence because the offence was assault. Section 33.1 states that a person who was self-inducing intoxicated cannot use the defence of intoxication if the offence has an element of assault or any threat to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person. In order for Scarlett to use intoxication as a defence, the offence she had committed could not have been assault and that she committed the offence due to automatism. However, Scarlett cannot use this defence of automatism because the offence involved assault and violence. Therefore, Scarlett will be convicted of assault under the Criminal Code for physically assaulting her boyfriend while she was intoxicated.
4. Assault with a weapon charge
Section 467 of the Criminal Code, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, states that every one, in committing an assault, carries a weapon or who causes bodily harm to the complainant is guilty of an indictable offence.
Scarlett will not be able to use the defence of provocation, s 232 under the Criminal Code. Provocation can only be used as a defence under a murder charge. Furthermore, provocation is only a partial defence, allowing the accused to be convicted of a lesser charge. Scarlett threw the trophy, which she used as a weapon, at her boyfriend and injured him. Since Scarlett is unable to use provocation as a defence, she will be convicted of assault with a weapon or causing bodily
harm.
5. Representation of Scarlett on assault with a weapon charge
Although the Crown has stated its intentions of proceeding by summary conviction and only asking the court for a 30-day sentence, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, s 467, is out of the scope of practice for paralegals in Ontario. Section 467of the Criminal Code is out of the scope of practice for paralegals because the maximum imprisonment under a summary conviction is a term not exceeding 18 months. The Law Society of Ontario authorized paralegals to represent someone in Small Claims Court, in Provincial Offences and on summary conviction offences where the maximum penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine. Therefore, I will not be able to represent Scarlett as a licensed paralegal, for her charge of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm.