WHICH STRUCTURES DOES THE HOUSEBREAKING CRIME PROTECT?

The origins of the housebreaking crime (for the sake of brevity this term will be used throughout this note, rather than the bulkier (but more accurate) “housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime”) are inexorably bound up with the need to protect the dweller in his or her abode. From the earliest times the interest of a person in the safe and private habitation of his home has been treated reverently and regarded as deserving of special protection by the law. This concern is reflected by the fact that common-law jurisdictions have typically classified housebreaking as a crime against the habitation, which implies the right to “feel secure in one’s own home”. With the broadening of the ambit of the crime (variously referred to as burglary or breaking and entering in other jurisdictions) beyond merely protecting habitation, differing approaches have been taken in defining the nature of the premises that can be broken into. Thus in English law, to be a “building” within the definition of the crime (in terms of s 9(1) of the Theft Act, 1968) the structure is required to have some degree of permanence and an inhabited vehicle or vessel is specifically included in theterm “building” (s 9(4) of the Theft Act, 1968). In Canada, breaking and entering (in terms of s 348 of the Canadian Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c.C-46) include, within the understanding of a “structure” which can be broken into and entered, spaces enclosed by a fence, but not unenclosed spaces. The position in South Africa has not been definitively resolved, although it can at least be accepted that it is incorrect to state that the breaking into and entering can only be in respect of an immovable structure, and cannot be committed by breaking into a movable structure. What then is the South African position regarding the nature of a “premises” which is protected by the housebreaking crime?

Persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for sexual offences: characteristics, risk factors, and Review Board decision making

This thesis examined the characteristics of persons found NCRMD for sexual offences, their offences, and the degree to which empirically supported risk factors predicted Review Board decisions. Reasons documents dated from 2006 to 2015, and examining index sexual offences were collected from LawSource ©. Search terms were derived from the Canadian Criminal Code (1985, c. C-46), and commonly accepted terminology for sexual offending. Findings suggest that persons found NCRMD for sexual offences present with general and sexual offence specific risk factors for recidivism. However, Review Board decisions were only predicted by factors related to clinical functioning and risk management factors. These findings suggest that further research is needed to examine risk assessment, decision making, and forensic mental health outcomes of persons found NCRMD for sexual offences. Implications for treatment of persons found NCRMD and knowledge dissemination to Review Boards are also discussed.

Persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for sexual offences: characteristics, risk factors, and Review Board decision making

This thesis examined the characteristics of persons found NCRMD for sexual offences, their offences, and the degree to which empirically supported risk factors predicted Review Board decisions. Reasons documents dated from 2006 to 2015, and examining index sexual offences were collected from LawSource ©. Search terms were derived from the Canadian Criminal Code (1985, c. C-46), and commonly accepted terminology for sexual offending. Findings suggest that persons found NCRMD for sexual offences present with general and sexual offence specific risk factors for recidivism. However, Review Board decisions were only predicted by factors related to clinical functioning and risk management factors. These findings suggest that further research is needed to examine risk assessment, decision making, and forensic mental health outcomes of persons found NCRMD for sexual offences. Implications for treatment of persons found NCRMD and knowledge dissemination to Review Boards are also discussed.

Redefining Mandatory Vaccination as Necessary to Life and the Refusal of Vaccination as Criminal Negligence Causing Death

This paper argues that childhood vaccination should be considered a necessary of life as defined in Section 215 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, and parents who do not vaccinate their children should be considered responsible for death by criminal negligence if their child dies from a preventable disease. It timelines the long history of the vaccine debate from the perspective of both science of skeptics and points to the since-retracted Wakefield paper as the catalyst for the re-emergence of this debate, detailing the science behind why vaccination is safe, effective, and necessary. It then outlines the theory of medical neglect as a form of indirect killing in the same way starvation or lack of shelter is currently considered neglect under the Code, to prove that vaccination is required for all children who can be vaccinated and the dangers of not doing so. It concludes with notes on disease prevention and education to increase the number of vaccinated children, as the goal of defining vaccination as a necessary of life is not meant to punish parents but to encourage higher rates of vaccination and a greater communal knowledge of medical procedures.

Unlawful and Dangerous

The crime of unlawful act manslaughter (otherwise known as constructive manslaughter) exists in English and Australian common law. It is also an offence contrary to the Canadian Criminal Code. In all three jurisdictions the offence shares the same essential elements, including the requirements that the accused commit an act which is both unlawful and dangerous. This article will explore the case law on unlawful act manslaughter in Australia, Canada and England, focusing on the elements of an unlawful act and dangerousness, in order to identify similarities and differences in the application of the law in the three jurisdictions. Where differences are found, consideration will be given to the question whether English law should be reformulated.

The Canadian Criminal Code Offence of Trafficking in Persons: Challenges from the Field and within the Law

Despite early ratification of the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol, the <em>Criminal Code</em> offence of trafficking in persons in Canada has received little analytical or interpretive attention to date. Adopted in 2005, this offence has resulted in successful convictions in a limited number of cases and criminal justice authorities have continued to rely on alternate or complementary charges in cases of human trafficking. In particular, prosecutions for cases involving non-sexual labour trafficking remain extremely low. This article provides a socio-legal examination of why the offence of trafficking in persons in Canada is under-utilized in labour trafficking cases. Based on an analysis of data generated from 56 one-on-one interviews gathered from a variety of actors involved in counter trafficking response mechanisms and a legal examination of the key components of the offence, we argue that definitional challenges have resulted in narrow understandings and problematic interpretations of the Criminal Code offence. Such narrow interpretations have resulted in restricted applicability, particularly in cases of labour trafficking. More broadly, the article points to the need to address the limitations of the <em>Criminal Code</em> while formulating responses to trafficking that are not dependent on criminal law.