a law case (R.V Stafford

AHSS2110 – Winter 2019 RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES INSTRUCTIONS Students enrolled in this course are required to submit a research paper worth 25% of the overall grade. The purpose of this paper is to analyze an issue arising out of an actual case using one of the criminological models studied in this course. This is an individual project. LEARNING OUTCOMES • Prepare an effective briefing note • Critically analyze a Canadian court case to identify salient points and issues • Succinctly summarize factual information regarding a specific issue • Apply a criminological theory to an issue LEARNING PROCESS Topics and Case Selection: Select a case upon which you would like to conduct research from the extensive list in Appendix A. Sign-up for your case by January 22, 2019. Sign-up is available under the Groups tab on CourseLink. Any student not signed up by January 22, 2019 at 11:59 pm will be randomly assigned to one of the remaining cases. This is an individual project. No more than two students per section may select the same case. Approval may be given to other cases if approved in advance of the sign-up deadline. Such case will be added to the case list. Bear in mind, this is an analytical assignment in the Canadian context. Consequently, i) Cases MUST be Canadian. ii) Cases pertaining to serial killers or mass murderers will not be approved. Due Date: The Research Paper is due on Friday, February 15, 2019, submitted to Dropbox by 11:59 pm with Turnitin Score on the Cover Page. PLEASE RETAIN A COPY FOR YOUR FILES! All papers must be assessed though Turnitin prior to submission to Dropbox. Submitting an assignment without a Turnitin assessment will result in a minimum 10% penalty. Turnitin Information: CLASS ID: 20040211 PASSWORD: critique Format: You will present your research in the form of a Briefing Note (BN). BN’s are used to concisely summarize critical issues for senior officials (typically government ministers) to keep them apprised of situations within their portfolios. This is NOT a Research Essay. Papers not submitted in Briefing Note format will receive a grade of zero. The BN must be typed, 2 pages long (plus title page and references), single-spaced, 1” margins, Times New Roman or Arial font. Other than the references and title page, page 3 will not be graded. While single-spaced, it must be very readable both in its content and in its formatting. The BN must follow the basic structure shown in the MODEL BN available on CourseLink. ORGANIZATION: Select an “issue” related to your case. Centered at the top of your first page, write the following: Briefing Note for the Minister regarding . Use the following headings to organize your research: Issue: State the issue you are addressing. This should be based on the topic you selected. Current Situation: What is currently occurring in regard to your issue? Background: What does the Minister need to know in order to understand your issue? Key Considerations: Are there any concerns the Minister must take into account as they try to understand your issue? Differing perspectives and their political weight might form part of your discussion here. Options & Recommendations: What should the Minister do next? EXEMPLARS & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Exemplars have been provided for you on CourseLink. In addition, the websites below will provide you with additional guidance in preparing your BN. Example of a good BN: o https://www.publicsectorwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/OptionsRecommendation-Briefing-Note.pdf Instructions on the process of writing a BN: o http://advocacyschool.org/PDF/OHCCslideshowJune17-SusanDoyle.pdf Basic structure of a BN: o https://www.publicsectorwriting.com/?page_id=6 o http://web.uvic.ca/~sdoyle/E302/Notes/WritingBriefingNotes.html Writing Style: There will be little, if any, space for direct quotations in the BN. You may use one or two exceptionally short quotes if you cite them properly. Otherwise, use your own words and be as clear and concise as possible. While APA is preferred, footnotes/endnotes are permitted due to 2 page limit. Rubric: A Rubric for this assignment will be available on CourseLink. Late Penalty: Projects handed-in after the due date will be assessed a late penalty of 5% for the first day and 5% each day thereafter up to a maximum of 7 days. After 7 days, your grade will be marked as ZERO. Note: the first 5% will be deducted for submission received any time after 11:59 pm on Friday, February 15, 2019. Length: As per briefing note format, the length for this assignment is a maximum of 2 pages. Page 3 will not be read. Sources: A minimum of 5 peer-reviewed sources must be used. Any source listed in the References MUST be cited within the BN. A paper using less than 5 peer-reviewed sources will receive a grade of zero. In order to qualify as a ‘source’ the piece must satisfy the following criteria: 1) peerreviewed; or 2) a valid and reliable government source. Other sources i.e., books (including Text), magazines, newspapers, Internet blogs or websites etc. may be used but will NOT be included in determining number of sources. Citations and References: A references page is mandatory. A paper without citations and references will not be graded and may be considered Academic Misconduct. Appendix A Potential Cases (no more than two students per section per case) 1. Canada v Bedford, Lebovitch & Scott (successful SCC challenge against prostitution laws) 2. Canada v Ishaq (unveiling/removing niqaq during citizenship oath violates right of freedom of religion; Ontario Court of Appeal says judges must allow broad religious freedom) 3. Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr (young Canadian Muslim child soldier imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo Bay; abandoned by Canadian government) 4. Carter v Canada (successful charter challenge re: criminalization of assisted suicide) 5. Childs v Desormeaux (social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol) 6. David Robert Stephan v Her Majesty the Queen (failure to provide the necessities of life in death of son, Ezekiel, or religious freedom?) 7. Doe v Bennett (Supreme Court decision regarding “vicarious liability” of Catholic Church for sexual abuse by priest) 8. Dudley George/Ipperwash Crisis (FN man killed by OPP during land rights protest; alleged interference of former Premier Harris in policing decisions) 9. Figueiras v Toronto (Police Services Board) (police powers vs violation of civil rights during G20 summit) 10. Gerald Phillips/Roger Perry (corporate executives of Westray mines who sent people into its mines knowing a mine collapse was imminent – 26 miners died; results in Bill 145 (the Westray Bill) changing the criminal code to hold corporations and corporate executives criminally responsible for decisions that result in employee deaths) 11. Jane Doe v Toronto Police Service (successfully sued TPS for using her as “bait” to capture the Balcony rapist; results in changes to TPS policy re informing public of potential imminent dangers) 12. Oglamien v Ontario (Habeas corpus application of two prisoners against excessive use of lockdowns in correctional facilities) 13. R v Ansari (Toronto 18 terrorism case) 14. R v Askov (SCC determined criteria for determining CCRF meaning of “within a reasonable timeframe”) 15. R v Biesar (The “Path” stabbing; NCRMD?) 16. R v Charles Smith (disgraced pediatric forensic pathologist responsible for sending numerous innocent individuals to prison) 17. R v Durham Regional Crime Stoppers (determination re: whether accused can expect informer privilege if accused is individual “tip” provider) 18. R v Ellard (racialized bullying; murder of Reena Virk, 4 trials & appeals to SCC) 19. R v Felderof (chief geologist at Bre-X, a Canadian gold mining company – one of the world’s largest and most devastating corporate scams) 20. R v Forcillo (murder of Sammy Yatim by police officer) 21. R v Ghomeshi (CBC sexual assault & harassment) 22. R v Harrison (admissibility of evidence obtained in a breach of Charter rights) 23. R v Hart (Mr. Big sting operations) 24. R v Husbands (shooting in Eaton Centre food court) 25. R v JA (consent to sexual activity and state of consciousness) 26. R v Jones/R v Marakah (expectation of privacy re: text messages) 27. R v Jordan (presumptive ceiling in length of criminal prosecutions from charge to end of trial) 28. R v Keegstra (hate crimes against Jewish community or freedom of expression?) 29. R v Labaye (SCC challenge re: charges during 1981 bathhouse raids for keeping a common bawdy house; results in public apology from Prime Minister and Bill C-66, expunging the records of historically unjust criminal convictions) 30. R v Latimer (murder of disabled daughter or mercy killing?) 31. R v Lavalee (murder of husband by wife – SCC precedent setting use of battered women’s syndrome defence) 32. R v Magnotta (murder & dissemination of body parts; NCRMD defence) 33. R v Marshall (wrongful conviction of young Micmac man, imprisoned 11 years before exoneration; results in changes to Canada’s Evidence Act) 34. R v McNally (first successful use of DNA in Canada) 35. R v Melargni/R v Longpre (acquittal of two white police officers in killing of Michael Wade Lawson, a young black man; sparked establishment of Commission on Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System (Canada’s “Rodney King”) 36. R v Morgentaler (successful constitutional challenge re: abortion & women’s right to life, liberty & security of the person) 37. R v Nicholas Layman (NCRMD defence in stabbing death of young boy) 38. R v Nyznik, Kara and Cabero (3 Toronto police officers acquitted of sexually assaulting colleague) 39. R v Oakes (SCC sets criteria for determining reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms as “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” under the CCRF) 40. R v Parks (precedent setting re: sleep-walking defence for murder) 41. R v Phillion (wrongful conviction of young man, imprisoned 31 years & on parole for 5 years before exoneration (longest in Canadian history); results in clarification of evidence & disclosure rules) 42. R v Phillips and the Klu Klux Klan (1930) (prosecution of KKK members for actions in Oakville, Ontario) 43. R v Sharpe (child pornography or freedom of expression?) 44. R v Silviera/Feeney/Knelson (precedent setting re: unreasonable search & seizure) 45. R v Sorenson & Brost (largest Ponzi scheme in Canadian history) 46. R v Spencer (citizen rights to internet anonymity) 47. R v Stafford (murder of husband by wife (first use of battered women’s syndrome as defence, see also Jane Hurschman/Jane Corkum) 48. R v Thatcher (contract killing of ex-wife; former member of Saskatchewan legislature) 49. R v Turcotte (right to remain silent and not self-incriminate) 50. R v Uruyar (successful appeal of conviction for rape of graduate student/colleague) 51. R v Vince Li (Greyhound beheading of Tim McLean; NCRMD defence) 52. R v William Mullins-Johnson (wrongfully convicted of killing niece based on evidence of Charles Smith; NCRMD?) 53. Reference Re Ng Extradition (Can.) (extradition of serial murderer to USA; claimed extradition would violate CCRF as he would face capital murder charges in California) 54. Robin Camp (“knees together judge” currently before Alberta Law Society Reinstatement Hearing; results in Bill C-337: Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act requiring mandatory sexual violence training for judiciary) 55. Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (SCC decision that prisoners have the right to vote under CCRF) 56. Tremblay v Daigle (constitutional challenge re: primacy of women’s right to determine what happens to her body (Canada’s “Roe vs Wade”)