I was thinking no considering Actus Rea is present without Mens Rea. Also, can you be arrested for suspicion of violating parole if there was no reasonable grounds?
Asked over 1 year ago in Ontario
Categories:
Criminal Law
Reply by Police Officer the shield |
Sounds like a homework question. You could be charged with Assault Police but there would be an onus on the Crown to prove that the accused had knowledge or ought to have known the person assaulted was a police officer. The other pivotal point that would have to be advanced in order for a conviction would be the question as to whether or not the officer was in the lawful execution of his/her duty. Any charge can be laid....the question is whether or not a conviction would be obtained is a completly different matter subject to details arising from the evidence presented at trial.
Your second question is a little ambiguous, did the parolee contravene a condition of his parole or not? A police officer may have reasonable grounds to belive that a criminal offence has taken place and then arrest the party, thus notifying Corrections Canada who then decides whether or not to issue a parole violation warrant. Maybe a hypothetical situation would provide a better foundation for an answer.
Posted over 1 year ago
I am a retired police officer with experience on the Tactical team, Vice Unit,
Major Crime Unit and Drug Squad.
Please note that this is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice to you. Legal advice pertaining to your particular situation can only be provided by a lawyer who has met with you to obtain all pertinent background information necessary to give you a formal legal opinion. For formal legal advice, hire a lawyer (many give a free first consultation).
Search
the Lawyer Directory, or use our free Lawyer Referral Service.
 |
 Ontario lawyer
|
You can be charged with assault police if the police have reasonable grounds to believe you knew the person was a police officer or you were wilfully blind to that fact (ie. knew there was a risk the person was an undercover officer and deliberately closed your mind to that risk to avoid knowing the answer). It is not enough that, factually speaking, the person is a police officer; the police must have the grounds to believe you had the required mental state (knowledge of the person's identity as a police officer).
It is also not enough for the police to arest you on the basis that you "ought to have known" the person was a police officer; they can only arrest if they reasonably believe you did in fact know (or were wilfully blind) to the fact the person was a police officer.
Posted over 1 year ago
Please note that this is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice to you. Legal advice pertaining to your particular situation can only be provided by a lawyer who has met with you to obtain all pertinent background information necessary to give you a formal legal opinion. For formal legal advice, hire a lawyer (many give a free first consultation).
Contact Dale E. Ives, search
the Lawyer Directory, or use our free Lawyer Referral Service.
Reply by Police Officer the shield |
Dale Ives.....I suppose that your answer is more articulate than mine but I would suggest that in some drug takedowns where a police officer simply says police and then tries to arrest a person, (not having the opportunity to retrieve a badge or warrant card) and is then sucker-punched may be a situation where a jury may buy into it. Not a strong argument on my part and clearly defendable if the person indicated that they feared a drug ripoff....all this taking place after a drug deal is basically what I was refering to. I don't know if that would qualify for being wilfully blind though. In any event for the poster.....it wouldn't be the prudent charge for the Crown to proceed with knowing that straight assault would have a much higher probablity of conviction. When I was undercover, two guys jumped me not knowing that I was an officer and I never entertained the thought of laying assault police because their motive was obviously to rob me and I'm sure that had they known that my cousins were Smith and Wesson, it wouldn't have crossed their mind.
Posted over 1 year ago
I am a retired police officer with experience on the Tactical team, Vice Unit,
Major Crime Unit and Drug Squad.
Please note that this is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice to you. Legal advice pertaining to your particular situation can only be provided by a lawyer who has met with you to obtain all pertinent background information necessary to give you a formal legal opinion. For formal legal advice, hire a lawyer (many give a free first consultation).
Search
the Lawyer Directory, or use our free Lawyer Referral Service.
Follow Us
