THE THREE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE 400-500 WORD EACH AND PLEASE USE CITATIONS AND DO NOT COPY AND PASTE (NO PLAGIARISM)
1. Nubbles and Rudge decide to rob the Tight Fist Bank. They make elaborate plans and purchase some firearms to assist them in their venture. On the appointed day, they drive to a street corner just one block away from the bank; they intend to observe the bank for a while and then undertake the robbery at the most appropriate moment. However, a police cruiser passes by and the two officers notice that Nubble and Rudge look suspicious. The officers arrest the would-be bandits when they find two sawed-off shotguns and two masks on the back seat of the car. Nubbles and Rudge are subsequently charged with attempted robbery. Are they guilty of this offence?
Discuss the potential criminal liability, if any, of each person mentioned. Identify, define, and describe relevant concepts and issues.
State any assumptions you may need to make to analyze the issues. In your response, consider course materials, case law, legislation, any contributions to the optional discussion forums, and any other resources you consider relevant.
2. Cruncher and Slammer are professional hockey players who are playing on opposing teams. As Cruncher is carrying the puck, Slammer pushes him into the boards along the side of the hockey rink. An altercation develops between them, and some punches are thrown. The referee whistles play dead, and after a brief period, the linesmen separate Cruncher and Slammer and lead them toward their respective penalty boxes. However, Cruncher breaks free from his accompanying linesman and skates up to Slammer and punches him in the eye – to the delight of the local fans. Cruncher is 6 feet 5 inches tall and weighs 280 pounds. Slammer is 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighs 150 pounds. The blow inflicted by Cruncher opens a deep cut underneath Slammer’s eye and numerous stitches are required to close the wound. Cruncher is charged with assault causing bodily harm. Does cruncher have any defence(s)?
In addition to the question posed above, please discuss the Instructor’s addition to the fact pattern as follows:
Mandy was sitting in the audience at the hockey rink. She was so distressed and upset by seeing Slammer injured, with all the blood on the ice, that she became dazed and disoriented. She grabbed her umbrella and repeatedly hit a nearby woman on the head with it, injuring her. Several hockey fans had to intervene to stop Mandy from hitting the woman, and they would later tell the police that Mandy had a blank look, and did not seem to be normal.
Discuss the potential criminal liability, if any, of each person mentioned. Identify, define, and describe relevant concepts and issues.
State any assumptions you may need to make to analyze the issues. In your response, consider course materials, case law, legislation, any contributions to the optional discussion forums, and any other resources you consider relevant.
3. A federal politician, Ronald Thump, has recently announced that the Canadian government will amend the criminal law to reduce the number of defences available to accused persons. In particular, the government intends to completely eliminate the defence of necessity or duress.
“With one of these defences eliminated, there will be cost savings in the criminal justice system. Canada has far too many defences available to accused persons, resulting in court delays and increased costs,” Mr. Thump stated. “One of these defences has got to go. The public is confused about these two defences, and too many criminals are getting off on these technicalities.”
Mr. Thump has asked you, his Special Advisor, to prepare an opinion for him on which defence to eliminate: necessity or duress. He wants a clear Recommendation from you, with reasons for your choice.
In your opinion, you must describe both defences in detail and provide examples.
