R. v. Briscoe

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

Michael Briscoe was charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, and first-degree murder in connection with the death of a 13-year-old girl, C. Briscoe drove C and her friend, along with L and three youths, to a secluded golf course under the pretense of going to a party. L had previously expressed a desire to kill someone, and C was chosen as the victim. At the golf course, Briscoe handed L pliers from the trunk. While the others went onto the golf course, Briscoe stayed behind, later rejoining the group around the time C was attacked. Briscoe briefly held C and told her to be quiet, then watched as she was brutally raped and murdered. At trial, the judge found that Briscoe had committed the actus reus of being a party to the offenses, but lacked the mens rea because he did not have the requisite knowledge of L's intention to commit the crimes. The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals, ordering a new trial because the trial judge failed to consider wilful blindness.

Issues

Did the trial judge err by failing to consider the accused's knowledge from the perspective of the doctrine of wilful blindness when determining whether the accused had the mens rea to be a party to the offenses of kidnapping, aggravated assault, and first-degree murder under section 21(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mens rea requirement for aiding and abetting an offense under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code has two components: intent and knowledge. The Crown must prove that the accused intended to assist the principal offender and knew that the principal intended to commit the crime. The Court clarified that the doctrine of wilful blindness can substitute for actual knowledge when knowledge is a component of the mens rea. Wilful blindness occurs when an accused suspects wrongdoing, recognizes the need for inquiry, but deliberately chooses not to inquire. The Court found that the evidence in this case strongly suggested Briscoe had a well-founded suspicion that someone would be killed and may have been wilfully blind to the kidnapping and prospect of sexual assault. His own statements indicated he deliberately avoided inquiring about the group's intentions. Therefore, the trial judge's failure to consider wilful blindness was a legal error.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, ordering a new trial on all charges. The Court found that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the doctrine of wilful blindness when assessing Briscoe's knowledge and intent, which was a necessary component of the mens rea for being a party to the offenses.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod! Today, we’re diving into a case that really highlights the complexities of criminal intent: *R. v. Briscoe*. On the surface, the facts are horrifying. Michael Briscoe was involved in a truly terrible crime, the kidnapping, assault, and murder of a young girl. He drove the victim and her friend, along with others, to a secluded golf course. The ringleader, L, had voiced his desire to kill someone, and tragically, this young girl became the target. Briscoe even handed L the pliers later used in the attack. Now, here’s where it gets legally interesting. At trial, the judge acknowledged Briscoe’s physical involvement – his *actus reus* – but acquitted him, stating he lacked the necessary mental intent – the *mens rea*. The judge believed Briscoe didn’t *know* what L was planning. But the Court of Appeal disagreed, and that's where the concept of "wilful blindness" comes in. They overturned the acquittal, and the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The key issue here: Can someone be held responsible for a crime if they didn't *explicitly* know it was going to happen, but deliberately avoided finding out? This is where section 21 of the Criminal Code comes into play, specifically regarding being a party to an offence. The Supreme Court clarified that for aiding and abetting, the prosecution must prove both intent to assist the principal offender AND knowledge of the principal's intent to commit the crime. But, importantly, they affirmed that wilful blindness *can* substitute for actual knowledge. So, what is wilful blindness? It's when someone suspects something is wrong, knows they should investigate, but consciously chooses *not* to. It's a deliberate act of ignorance. It’s like seeing smoke but refusing to acknowledge the possibility of fire. In Briscoe's case, there was strong evidence suggesting he suspected something terrible was going to happen. His own statements even indicated he avoided inquiring about the group's intentions. He might not have known all the details, but did he actively avoid knowing? The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeal. They ruled that the trial judge *erred* by not considering wilful blindness. It was a crucial element in determining Briscoe's knowledge and, therefore, his *mens rea*. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. This case is a really good example of how the law grapples with the grey areas of criminal intent. It's not always about what someone knew for certain, but also about what they deliberately chose not to know. It's a tough but important distinction. That’s all for this episode of Casepod. Join us next time as we unpack another fascinating legal case!