R. v. McKenzie, (1980) 3 Man.R.(2d) 25 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 04, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 25 (CoCt)

R. v. McKenzie (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 25 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. McKenzie

Indexed As: R. v. McKenzie

Manitoba County Court

Judges' Criminal Court

Eastern Judicial District

Jewers, C.C.J.

February 4, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 33

Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. crimes of general or basic intent - The accused was charged with robbery and with assaulting police officers - The accused pleaded in his defence that he was incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent to commit the crime being under the influence of the drug LSD - The Manitoba County Court found that the accused was under the influence of LSD and acquitted the accused of the charges, but convicted him of the included offence of common assault - The County Court held that the accused's defence was applicable to the charges of robbery and assaulting police officers, both of which required specific criminal intent - The County Court held, however, that the defence was of no assistance on a charge of common assault, which required only general intent.

Criminal Law - Topic 38

Mens rea or intention - Lack of understanding or capacity caused by drugs - The accused was charged with robbery and with assaulting police officers - The accused pleaded in his defence that he was incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent to commit the crime, being under the influence of the drug LSD - The Manitoba County Court found that the accused was under the influence of LSD and acquitted the accused of the charges, but convicted him of the included offence of common assault - The County Court held that the accused's defence was applicable to the charges of robbery and assaulting police officers, both of which required specific criminal intent - The County Court held, however, that the defence was of no assistance on a charge of common assault, which required only general intent.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lipman, [1969] 3 All E.R. 410, appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Curtis (1972), 19 C.R.N.S. 11, appld. [para. 18].

Bratt v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland, [1963] A.C. 386, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. George, [1960] S.C.R. 871, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Shand, 3 C.C.C.(2d) 8, appld. [para. 22].

R. v. Vlcko (1973), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 139, appld. [para. 22].

R. v. Lipman, [1969] 3 All E.R. 410, consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Haywood, [1971] V.R. 755 (Supreme Court of Victoria), appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Ryan, [1967] A.L.R. 577, appld. [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stroud on Mens Rea (1914), p. 115 [para. 29].

Counsel:

B. Kaplan, for the Crown;

G. Rodin, for the accused.

This case was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before JEWERS, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court of the Eastern Judicial District, who delivered the following judgment on February 4, 1980: