R. v. Martineau
Encyclopedia
R. v. Martineau [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
case on the mens rea
requirement for murder.
. Martineau was armed with a pellet gun and Tremblay was armed with a rifle. Martineau was under the impression that they were only going to commit breaking and entering
and no one would be killed. However, during the robbery Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean.
Martineau was charged with second degree murder under s.213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code of Canada
(now s. 230(a) and (d)) for both deaths (under s.21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court.
At trial Martineau was convicted. But in appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal the court overturned the decision, concluding that s.213(a) violated s.7
and s.11(d)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
.
The issue before the Court was whether the appeal court was correct in holding s.213(a) as a violation of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
.
, Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ concurring.
Section 213(a) is known as the "constructive murder" provision of the criminal code. Section 213(a) defined culpable homicide as murder where a person causes the death of another while committing specific indictable offences, such as breaking and entering. This meant that one could be charged with murder under s. 213(a), despite having had neither an intent to kill nor the subjective knowledge that death might ensue from their actions. This was in contrast to the other murder provisions in the Code that require a subjective intent and foresight for a conviction.
Section 213(a) of the Code violated both ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. Specifically, it violated the principle of fundamental justice that an appropriate mens rea
must be proven by the Crown. Furthermore, the appropriate level of mens rea should be correlated to (1) the severity of the punishment and (2) the social stigma stemming from conviction. Murder is a major indictable offence: both the punishment and stigma stemming from conviction are severe. This being the case, the state must show subjective foresight and intent in order to prove the offence. However, as stated above, such a requirement was absent from s. 213(a). Thus, the violation was not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter because it failed the proportionality test.
Martineau's conviction 2 counts of 2nd degree murder should never have been overturned
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
case on the mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
requirement for murder.
Background
One evening in February 1985, Patrick Tremblay and 15 year-old Mr. Martineau set out to rob a trailer owned by the McLean family in Valleyview, AlbertaAlberta
Alberta is a province of Canada. It had an estimated population of 3.7 million in 2010 making it the most populous of Canada's three prairie provinces...
. Martineau was armed with a pellet gun and Tremblay was armed with a rifle. Martineau was under the impression that they were only going to commit breaking and entering
Burglary
Burglary is a crime, the essence of which is illicit entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offense. Usually that offense will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary...
and no one would be killed. However, during the robbery Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean.
Martineau was charged with second degree murder under s.213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
(now s. 230(a) and (d)) for both deaths (under s.21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court.
At trial Martineau was convicted. But in appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal the court overturned the decision, concluding that s.213(a) violated s.7
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and...
and s.11(d)
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
.
The issue before the Court was whether the appeal court was correct in holding s.213(a) as a violation of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Appeal Court. s.213(a), deciding that it violated the Charter and could not be saved under s.1Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that confirms that the rights listed in that document are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an...
.
Majority
The Majority was written by Lamer C.J.C. with Dickson C.J.C.Brian Dickson
Robert George Brian Dickson, , commonly known as Brian Dickson, was appointed Chief Justice of Canada on April 18, 1984. He retired on June 30, 1990 and died October 17, 1998.-Career:...
, Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ concurring.
Section 213(a) is known as the "constructive murder" provision of the criminal code. Section 213(a) defined culpable homicide as murder where a person causes the death of another while committing specific indictable offences, such as breaking and entering. This meant that one could be charged with murder under s. 213(a), despite having had neither an intent to kill nor the subjective knowledge that death might ensue from their actions. This was in contrast to the other murder provisions in the Code that require a subjective intent and foresight for a conviction.
Section 213(a) of the Code violated both ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. Specifically, it violated the principle of fundamental justice that an appropriate mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
must be proven by the Crown. Furthermore, the appropriate level of mens rea should be correlated to (1) the severity of the punishment and (2) the social stigma stemming from conviction. Murder is a major indictable offence: both the punishment and stigma stemming from conviction are severe. This being the case, the state must show subjective foresight and intent in order to prove the offence. However, as stated above, such a requirement was absent from s. 213(a). Thus, the violation was not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter because it failed the proportionality test.
Dissent
L'Heureux-Dube J., alone, dissented. She held that s.213(a) did not violate either section of the Charter.Martineau's conviction 2 counts of 2nd degree murder should never have been overturned