Please note that the Laws of England and Wales are immediately applicable in Canada; including the Common Law under the Criminal Code of Canada. The new exam question is as follows: Mr. Smith works at a hardware store. He worked there for 10 years with a young female who was always about 16 years old although she was really about 43 years old when he started working there. She had a dream about James Bond coming to the shop and being the new manager and teaching her how to use the...tools and the...drill bits and how to cool down the drill hole when it got...hot. After her dream, there were two police man who showed up at the shop to say her emotional readings from her mobile start phone said she was unusually emotional and she was about to pop since the dream was just...bewildering. She said nothing happened. In fact, she said he did not teach her any...of his skill..with his drill. It was just a dream and that she was really involved in a family Court battle but she needed a raise so she would like to make a statement against her co-worker who, while at work, was always on video in the separate customer booth and never actually spoke to her except but to say hello and good bye. Her name was Coy Ote. His name was She Epdog. He never touched her hands and only waived. He was charged with EQUAL assault...I mean sexual assault. James Bond showed up an arrested her for her allegation as the wise policeman. Can the Crown prove their case? Please discuss the elements of the offense. For bonus points, please discuss if the accused is guilty. Please see the answer on Tuesday. The above question raises a variety of issues in the laws involving offenses against the person. It raises the issues of assault in particular. The issue of uttering false statements is also raised. There is a very long and complete exam answer available. However, we must first agree that the compete answer regardless of the requisite and complete jurisprudential answer is that nothing happened. The accuser is not a victim. There is no need to discuss the actus reus and mens rea of the alleged offense where the actus reus is the unlawful touching of another. Touching is unlawful if the alleged victim has not consented. Accidental touching is also an offense as the requisite mens rea for assault is mere recklessness according to R vs. Palmer, R v. Savage and R v. Parmenter. These elements of the offense would have to be proven to satisfy the Crown onus according to R v. King and R v. Legere. Warren studied hard so he wouldn't embarrass his grandmother in Court. Levelsland said he would do anything not to be Jamaican. The other offenses disclosed by this set of facts are the Deception offense and the Contempt of Court. The actus reus involves the provision of false information with intent to deceive, mislead and pervert the course of justice. To purport that there is no criminal offense being committed in the evident non provision of basic income to all Canadians is an example. It is an offense. It would also be a perversion of the course of justice to and neglect of duty contrary to s.219(1) not to arrest those responsible. Contempt of Court involves any and all activity that brings the Court into disrepute. This is the short but complete answer and keep in mind that this does not diminish the sensitivity of the allegations.

Please note that the Laws of England and Wales are immediately applicable in Canada; including the Common Law under the Criminal Code of Canada. The new exam question is as follows:    Mr. Smith works at a hardware store.  He worked there for 10 years with a young female who was always about 16 years old although she was really about 43 years old  when he started working there. She had a dream about James Bond coming to the shop and being the new manager and teaching her how to use the...tools and the...drill bits and how to cool down the drill hole when it got...hot.  After her dream, there were two police man who showed up at the shop to say her emotional readings from her mobile start phone said she was unusually emotional and she was about to pop since the dream was just...bewildering.  She said nothing happened. In fact, she said he did not teach her any...of his skill..with his drill.    It was just a dream and that she was really involved in a family Court battle but she needed a raise so she would like to make a statement against her co-worker who, while at work, was always on video in the separate customer booth and never actually spoke to her except but to say hello and good bye. Her name was Coy Ote. His name was She Epdog. He never touched her hands and only waived. He was charged with EQUAL assault...I mean sexual assault.   James Bond showed up an arrested her for her allegation as the wise policeman.  Can the Crown prove their case? Please discuss the elements of the offense. For bonus points, please discuss if the accused is guilty.    Please see the answer on Tuesday.    The above question raises a variety of issues in the laws involving offenses against the person. It raises the issues of assault in particular. The issue of uttering false statements is also raised.  There is a very long and complete exam answer available. However, we must first agree that the compete answer regardless of the requisite and complete jurisprudential answer is that nothing happened. The accuser is not a victim. There is no need to discuss the actus reus and mens rea of the alleged offense where the actus reus  is the unlawful touching of another. Touching is unlawful if the alleged victim has not consented. Accidental touching is also an offense as the requisite mens rea for assault is mere recklessness according to R vs. Palmer,  R v. Savage and R v. Parmenter. These elements of the offense would have to be proven to satisfy the Crown onus according to R v. King and R v. Legere.  Warren studied hard so he wouldn't embarrass his grandmother in Court. Levelsland said he would do anything not to be Jamaican.    The other offenses  disclosed by this set of facts are  the Deception offense and the Contempt of Court. The actus reus involves the provision of false information with intent to deceive, mislead and pervert the course of justice.  To purport that there is no criminal offense being committed in the evident non provision of basic income to all Canadians is an example.  It is an offense. It would also be a perversion of the course of justice to and neglect of duty contrary to s.219(1)  not to arrest those responsible. Contempt of Court involves any and all activity that brings the Court into disrepute.    This is the short but complete  answer and keep in mind that this does not diminish the sensitivity of the allegations.