R.+c.+Paré

//R. v. Pare// Section 214(5)(b) stated at the time of the offence that “murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person __while committing__ an offence under section… 156 (indecent assault on a male)”. __Judicial history:__ Trial – Jury found accused guily of first degree murder (2. 214(5)(b) of Code). C.A. – Appeal dismissed, but substituted a second degree murder verdict.
 * __Facts:__** The accused (Pare) murdered a child after committing indecent assault. These actions occurred two minutes apart.


 * __Issues:__** Did the accused murder the child “while committing” the indecent assault, as per s. 214(5)(b) of the Criminal Code? (Was the murder committed of first or second degree?).


 * __Holding:__** The appeal is allowed – verdict of first degree murder restored.

Relevant Criminal Code provisions: 212, 213, 214. · Sections 212 and 213 create the substantive offence of murder; 214 relates to the classification of an offence as first or second degree for sentencing reasons. · A literal reading of s. 214(5) as it existed at the time of the offence suggests that Pare did not murder the child “while committing” the assault due to the lapse of time between the actions. However, “while committing” should be read in the context of the scheme and purpose of the legislation. · A narrow interpretation of the words “while committing” in ss. 214 (5) is supported by previous interpretations of the same words in s. 213, as well as the decisions in //R. v. Gourgon and Knowles (//Anderson J//.), R. v. Kjelsen (1980//) and //R. v. Sargent (1983)//. · **However, Martin J.A. took a broader interpretations in //R. v. Stevens//**: “where the act causing death and the acts constituting the rape, attempted rape, indecent assault or an attempt to commit indecent assault… all form part of one continuous sequence of events forming a single transaction, that death would not be caused during the commission fo the offence, event though the underlying offence in s. 213 in a sense could be said to be then complete”. **This suggests that a __close temporal and causative link__ is sufficient.**
 * __Reasoning (Wilson, J.):__**

· Criminal law represents a dramatic incursion into individual liberty. Reasonable doubts as to the imposition of a criminal penalty should be resolved in favour of the accused. Therefore, a doctrine of strict construction exists. · Is a narrow interpretation of “while committing” a reasonable one in consideration of the **scheme and purpose of the legislation**? o The exactly simultaneous approach to the facts of this case is problematic in that 1) it would hinge on a difficult determination of the beginning and end of indecent assault and 2) it leads to arbitrary and irrational temporal distinctions that are unrelated to the seriousness of the actions. A too-narrow interpretation of 214(5) that runs counter to common sense should not be adopted. o  Interpretation of Martin J.A. in Stevens is reasonable. It does not draw artifical lines between the commission and aftermath of the indecent assault, nor does it rely on an arbitrary simultaneous approach. · There is an organizing principles for s. 214(5): murder should be treated as an **exceptionally serious crime when committed by someone already abusing his power by illegally dominating another (the entire course of conduct is a “single transaction”)**. Parliament treats such a crime as being in the first degree.
 * Strict construction doctrine**


 * __Ratio:__** A homicide carried out within the context of illegal domination by the accused should be treated as part of a single transaction, and is therefore a crime of the first degree.