Tentatives
| Ang |
| Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2015. (Rev. # 6170) |
| n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible. |
Principes généraux
Attempts refer to the category of offences that amount to an unfulfilled (or "inchoate") substantive offence. Section 24 defines the meaning of "attempt" within the Criminal Code:
Tentatives
24 (1) Quiconque, ayant l’intention de commettre une infraction, fait ou omet de faire quelque chose pour arriver à son but est coupable d’une tentative de commettre l’infraction, qu’il fût possible ou non, dans les circonstances, de la commettre.
Note marginale :Question de droit
(2) Est une question de droit la question de savoir si un acte ou une omission par une personne qui a l’intention de commettre une infraction est ou n’est pas une simple préparation à la perpétration de l’infraction, et trop lointaine pour constituer une tentative de commettre l’infraction.
S.R., ch. C-34, art. 24
Certain offences have their own circumscribed meaning of attempt, such as bribery, obstructing justice, and attempt murder.[1]
- Unavailable Defences
Both legal and factual impossibility is not a defence to an allegation of attempt.[2]
The defence of abandonment is generally not to be considered and instead is treated as failure to form the full intent for attempt.[3]
- ↑ e.g. see attempted murder, Obstructing justice
- ↑
United States of America v Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 462, par Cory and Iacobucci JJ
R c Bear, 2013 MBCA 96 (CanLII), 299 Man R (2d) 175, par Steel JA
- ↑
See R c Sorrell and Bondett, 1978 CanLII 2388 (ON CA), 41 CCC (2d) 9, par curiam
R c Frankland, 1985 CanLII 3561, 23 CCC (3d) 385, par Dubin JA
Reconciling Offence Charged
An attempt is an included offence to most substantive offences.[1]
Tentative imputée, preuve de consommation d’infraction
661 (1) Lorsqu’une tentative de commettre une infraction fait l’objet d’une inculpation, mais que la preuve établit que l’infraction a été consommée, l’accusé n’a pas le droit d’être acquitté, mais le jury peut le déclarer coupable de la tentative, à moins que le juge qui préside le procès, à sa discrétion, ne dispense le jury de rendre un verdict et n’ordonne que le prévenu soit mis en accusation pour l’infraction consommée.
Note marginale :La déclaration de culpabilité est une fin de non-recevoir
(2) Un prévenu qui est déclaré coupable en vertu du présent article ne peut pas être poursuivi de nouveau pour l’infraction qu’il a été accusé d’avoir tenté de commettre.
S.R., ch. C-34, art. 588
Attempting vs Preparing
A person attempting to commit an offence can be criminally liable for the attempt. For any attempt to be made out, the person's actions must be more than "mere preparation."[2]
It is understood that a crime begins with an idea, then a decision to do the act, a plan to commit the act, then steps of preparation begin to carry out the plan. The criminal attempt begins only once the preparation is complete. The accused will then perform a series of acts with the intention of committing the offence.[3]
There is no general criterion to distinguish between mere preparation and actual attempt.[4] It largely going to be left to the "common sense" of the judge.[5]
There is, however, a "qualitative" distinction that can be made:[6]
- "...the distinction between preparation and attempt is essentially a qualitative one, involving the relationship between the nature and quality of the act in question and the nature of the complete offence, although consideration must necessarily be given, in making that qualitative distinction, to the relative proximity of the act in question to what would have been the completed offence, in terms of time, location and acts under the control of the accused remaining to be accomplished. I find that view to be compatible with what has been said about the actus reus of attempt in this Court and in other Canadian decisions that should be treated as authoritative on this question."
The trial judge should consider the "relative proximity of that conduct to the conduct required to amount to the completed substantive offence. Relevant factors would include time, location and acts under the control of the accused yet to be accomplished.”[7]
The issue is one of factual proximity to the offence.[8] An act that would otherwise be mere preparation can become an attempt where it is sufficiently proximate to the completion of the full actus reus.[9] However, a lack of temporal proximity will not prevent it from being an attempt.[10] Nor would the fact that there are several intermediate acts prevent the act from being an attempt.[11]
The act will be sufficient where the accused actions have "progressed a sufficient distance (beyond mere preparation) down the intended path."[12]
The act does not have to be a crime, a civil wrong or even a moral wrong.[13]
- Standard of Appellate Review
The issue of whether an act is an attempt as opposed to preparation is a question of law and reviewable on a standard of correctness.[14]
- ↑
See s. 660, 662
R c Webber, 1995 CanLII 333 (BC CA), [1995] BCJ No 2178 (BCCA), par Legg J
- ↑ R c Sarrazin, 2010 ONCA 577 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 3748 (CA), par Doherty JA, au para 54
- ↑
R c Cline, 1956 CanLII 150 (ON CA), (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 480, OJ No 454 (ONCA), par Laidlaw JA, au para 34
- ↑
R c Root, 2008 ONCA 869 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 125, par Watt JA, au para 96 (“authorities have yet to develop a satisfactory general criterion to assist trial judges in making the crucial distinction between mere preparation, on the one hand, and an attempt on the other.”)
R c Deutsch, 1986 CanLII 21 (SCC), 27 CCC (3d) 386, par Le Dain J ("the application of this distinction to the facts of a particular case must be left to common sense judgment.") - ↑ Root, supra, au para 96
- ↑ Deutsch, supra, au para 27
- ↑ Root, supra, au para 98
- ↑ Cline, supra, au para 34
- ↑ Root, supra, au para 99
- ↑ Root, supra, au para 99
- ↑ Root, supra, aux paras 99, 100
- ↑ Root, supra, au para 100
- ↑ Root, supra, au para 95
- ↑ s. 24(2) states "(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law." (R.S., c. C-34, s. 24.)
Mens Rea
There must be a specific intent to commit the act making up the offence.[1]
The mens rea for an attempt is the same as the mens rea as the offence itself. The only difference is that there is an incomplete actus reus.[2]
- ↑
R c Ancio, 1984 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1984] 1 SCR 225, par McIntyre J - attempt murder requires an "intention to commit the complete offence"
- ↑ R c Root, 2008 ONCA 869 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 125, par Watt JA, au para 94
Specific Examples
An accused who has gone through security at an airport with a ticket has attempted to breach his conditions to stay in the province.[1]
An accused who goes through the glove box of a car looking for keys to the car that he wishes to steal has attempted to commit theft.[2]
The act of making a plasticine impression of car keys with a view to stealing the car is mere preparation.[3]
An accused who ships fish, shows a sample and then solicits interest without any discussion of terms is attempting to sell.[4]
Pointing a loaded firearm at a person while making threats without touching the trigger can be an attempt murder.[5]
- ↑ R c Heafey, 2013 ABPC 133 (CanLII), par Fradsham J
- ↑
R c James, 1970 CanLII 1073 (ON CA), (1971) 2 CCC (2d) 141 (ONCA), par Gale CJ
- ↑ R c Lobreau, 1988 ABCA 304 (CanLII), (1988) 67 CR (3d) 74, par Irving JA
- ↑ R c Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 723, par Lamer CJ
- ↑ R c Boudreau, 2005 NSCA 40 (CanLII), 193 CCC (3d) 449, par MacDonald CJ