Address all of the following problems to the best of your ability, using the course text, the Criminal Code, and any additional research that you feel will enhance your answers. McGill citation must be used. Answer or discuss everything that is asked for. There is no minimum or maximum number of words for each problem – the more detailed your answers for each problem, the higher the marks. 1 – 4 are each worth. 1. First, describe in detail two circumstances in which a defendant may lose the benefit of the defence of necessity, as set out in the Hendriks (1988) case. In addition, Chief Justice McEachern of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the Macmillan Bloedel v. Simpson (1994) case stated that the defence of necessity was not available to the defendants for two reasons. Describe in detail the two reasons. 2. S.2 of the Criminal Code defines “mental disorder” as being a “disease of the mind.” How have the Canadian courts defined the term “disease of the mind” in the context of their application of S.16(1) of the Code [the NCRMD defence]? Also, S.16(1) of the Criminal Code states that an accused person must be found NCRMD if he or she is not capable of “appreciating the nature and quality of the act”. What is meant by the phrase “nature and quality of the act” in this context? 3. Bill C-49 (1992) made significant amendments to the Criminal Code provisions concerning sexual assault. In particular, it led to the enactment of S.273.2(b) of the Criminal Code, which stated that an honest - but mistaken – belief in consent will not entitle the accused to an acquittal of a charge of sexual assault unless the accused took “reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting”. Detail all you can about the legislative history of S.273.2(b). What were the arguments that were made, for and against, the provision? Which groups were actively involved in the debate over the desirability of enacting such a provision in the Criminal Code? How does this illustrate the political considerations that underlie many aspects of the process by which Canadians reform their criminal laws? 4. RE: Modes of participation in crime, assume that an accused person is charged with being a party to an offence on the basis that he or she provided incidental assistance to the individual who actually committed it. If the Crown wishes to obtain a conviction, to what extent must the Crown prove that the accused person had knowledge of what the actual perpetrator of the crime planned to do? Also, what are the mens rea elements that the Crown must prove in order to convict an accused person as a party to an offence that the Crown alleges the accused aided and/or abetted?