1. This will depend on the outcome of the Preliminary Inquiry.

I believe that Bosney will have to

stand trial since there is a sufficient case to put him to trial. I believe a reasonably instructed jury would return a verdict of guilty. However, the final outcome will depend on what the preliminary inquiry judge decides. (Part XV111 of the Criminal Code governs preliminary inquiry). Preliminary Inquiry: S548(1) Criminal Code : When all evidence is taken by the justice he shall a. if in his opinion there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial for the offence charged or any other indictable offences in respect of the same transaction order accused to stand trial b. discharge the accused if in his opinion there is no sufficient case to put the accused on trial. The Test for order to stand trial is set out in the case of The United States of America v Sheppard: judges task is to determine whether a reasonably instructed jury would infer guilt. The judge cannot make credibility findings but circumstantial evidence can be weighed. Crown must prove both the mens rea and the actus reus of the offence. S231(2) Criminal Code first degree murder is planned and deliberate so we must look at the facts to determine whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed would return a verdict of guilty. For first degree murder the crown must prove 1. The accused caused the victims death 2. The accused caused the death unlawfully 3. That the accused had the state of mind required for murder 4. That murder was both planned and deliberate. Murder is defined in section 229 and 230. Actus Reus: So First we must prove that Bosney caused the victims death. For all homicide offences the actus reus requires the causing of certain consequences before the offence is complete (s222). Causation: The crown prosecutor must prove that the accused caused the consequence beyond a reasonable doubt. For first degree murder causation must be a substantial and integral part of the killing. Bosney must have caused the death both in fact and in law as seen in the case of R v Nette. Causation requires both factual causation: and legal or imputable causation. Menezes. These principles reflect fundamental principles of criminal justice such as the principle that the morally innocent should not be punished. -- increased degree of moral culpability for murder before accused can be found guilty. S 231(5) of the criminal code significant contributing cause. Factual causation is concerned with an inquiry as to how the victim came to his or her death, in a medical, mechanical or physical sense and with the contribution of the accused to that result. Was the conduct of the accused a significant contributing cause of the prohibited consequence? If the cause is too remote to have caused the result then causation is not established. If the triggering chain of events is interrupted by an intervening cause it can serve to distance and exonerate the accused. Factual causation is resolved by the But for test.

Legal Causation inquiry concerns itself with the question of whether the accused should be held criminally responsible in law for the death that occurred- a moral reaction, a value judgment as to moral responsibility whether in the circumstances, a blamable cause ought to be identified. Williams: if causation is not proved then Bosney cannot be convicted of the offence that requires his act to produce a prohibited consequence. ** Nette: deals with the higher standard of responsibility of imputable cause that is required to secure a first degree murder conviction. Cory J states that the gravity of the crime and the severity of the sentence both indicate that a substantial and high degree of blameworthiness above and beyond that of murder must be established in order to convict an accused of first degree murder. Such a high degree of blameworthiness could only be established where the actions of the accused were found to be an essential substantial and integral part of the killing of the victim. ** in the case of homicide the accused conduct must be a significant contributing cause of the prohibited act. However, A tracheal tube was forced down her throat and in spite of efforts she died so she was alive before this process. The supreme court in Nette expressly recognize that there might be more difficult causation issues especially where new actors intervene. Improper medical treatment does not usually break the chain of causation s 225 Code. S225 of the Criminal Code provides that where a person causes bodily injury that is in itself dangerous and from which death results that person causes the death notwithstanding that the immediate cause of death is proper or improper treatment. Secondly we must prove that Bosney had caused the death unlawfully and had the state of mind required for murder. Intentional murder is defined in section 229 of the Criminal Code. Subjective Mens Rea is gleaned circumstantially and Bosney must have intention. Principle of fundamental justice under Charter s 7 requires that for conviction of murder it should be based on prove beyond reasonable doubt of subjective foresight. There is evidence to support the element for first degree murder being planned and deliberate since a representative of the Regional Bank was called to testify and gave evidence that Bosneys business was in money trouble. A representative of Hart insurance testified that around the time of Mrs Bosneys death he called to check on status of insurance policies and his life and his wifes were insured for 1,000,000. So this depends on what the preliminary judge decides after weighing the circumstantial evidence at the preliminary inquiry.

3. Will Carl be convicted? The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the elements for the offence are met. The Actus Reus and the Mens reus of the offence must be proved. According to the facts he is charged with criminal negligence causing bodily injury under section 221 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another is guilty of an indictable offence and liable. Section 219 describes criminal negligence. Everyone is criminally negligent who in doing anything or omitting to do anything shows wanton or disregard for the lives and safety of other persons. According to the facts he was speeding. The manner in which he was driving demonstrates criminal negligence. He was going around the curb and the fake left evidence shows that he had wanton or disregard for the safety of other persons. He had drinks and also had children in the car with him.