Statements (55)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:advocates_for |
misdirection by trial judge
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
court records
criminal appeal summary of facts and law trial and appeal process facts of the incident C67912 |
| gptkbp:clinical_trial |
gptkb:Ontario
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
burden of proof
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Mendez
gptkb:legal_case appellate court fear for life |
| gptkbp:doctrine |
justification in law
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
March 15, 2018
|
| gptkbp:exhibited_at |
witness testimony
|
| gptkbp:historical_debate |
proportionality of response
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
R v. Mendez
|
| gptkbp:impact |
criminal law in Canada
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
2018 ONCA 123
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Mc_Lachlin
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
appeal process
interpretation of evidence |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:Native_American_tribe
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Criminal_Code_of_Canada
self-defense Canadian criminal law three judges imminent threat reasonable belief in imminent harm defensive force standards |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:legislation
Crown attorney self-defense criteria |
| gptkbp:notable_event |
R v. Ducker
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
gptkb:majority_opinion
conviction overturned landmark decision appeal allowed new trial ordered retrial ordered future self-defense cases self-defense law evolution impact on legal standards legal victory for defendant self-defense interpretation self-defense justified |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:R_v._Mc_Intosh
influences on future rulings high court ruling |
| gptkbp:significance |
clarification of self-defense laws
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2018
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Southwark_Crown_Court
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|