[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]

updated on / mise à jour au: 8 November 2011

by / par  ©François Lareau, Ottawa, 2007
First posted on the internet on  9 October 2007

Selected Bibliography on
Mistake or Ignorance of Fact
                  - - - - - - - - - - -
Bibliographie choisie sur
l'erreur ou l'ignorance  de fait

Note:

Mistake of fact is also dealt in other bibliographies such as on attempt, intent, consent, mistake of law, selft-defence, and Justification, Excuse and the Tripartite Theory of the Criminal Offence, see http://www.lareau-law.ca/droitpenal_.htm,

L'erreur de fait est déjà illustré dans d'autres bibliographies, par exemple: l'intention, le consentement, l'erreur de droit, la légitime défense, la tentative, et la justification, l'excuse et la théorie tripartite de l'infraction pénale, voir les diverses bibliographies à  http://www.lareau-law.ca/droitpenal_.htm

ACORN, Annalise, "The Defence of Mistake of Fact and the Proposed Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Feminist Critique and Proposals for Reform",  Alberta Women and Seniors' Secretariat, 1994, 33 p;  also available in French under the title "La défense d'erreur de fait et la recodification proposée de la Partie générale du Code -- Une critique féministe et des propositions de réforme";

A.D.G. (Allan D. GOLD), "Notes and Comments: Strict Liability: Reasonable Mistake of Fact", (1977-78) 20 The Criminal Law Quarterly 300-306;
 

BACHER, Jean-Luc, "La politique criminelle de la Cour suprême du Canada en matière de fraude", (avril-juin 2005) 58 Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique et scientifique 215-228, et voir "erreur de fait" aux pp. 221-222;

BOURQUE, Sophie (Mme la juge), "Les moyens de défense", dans Barreau du Québec, École, Droit pénal: Infractions, moyens de défense et peine, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2007, aux pp. 175-207, et voir les  "L'erreur de fait", les pp. 185-187  (Collection; Collection de droit 2007-2008; vol. 12), ISBN: 9782896350322; copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 385 ZB5 C681 v. 12 1007-08; note: voir aussi la contribution de LAPOINTE, infra, dans le même livre;
 

BRAITHWAITE, W.J., "Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure: The 1978-79 Term", (1980) 1 Supreme Court Law Review 187-248 [see "I. Mens Rea: Strict Liability, Mistake of Fact and Law, Motive", pp. 188-213];
 

COLVIN, Eric, 1945 and Sanjeev Anand, Principles of Criminal Law, 3rd ed., Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, li, 599 p., ISBN: 978 0779813247;
 

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, Freedom and Security under the Law, Second Report -- Volume 1, [Ottawa]: The Commission, 1981, xxii, 664 p., and see "Mistake of fact", at pp. 365-367, ISBN: 0660109514 and 0660109506 (vol. 1 and 2) (Chairman: Mr. Justice D.C. McDonald); also published in French/aussi publié en français: COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE SUR CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS DE LA GENDARMERIE ROYALE DU CANADA, Liberté et la sécurité devant la loi: deuxième rapport -- volume 1, [Ottawa]: La Commission, 1981, ISBN: 0660907682 (vol.1 et 2) (Président: D.C. McDonald);

CONNELLY, Peter J., "Drunkenness and Mistake of Fact: Pappajohn v. The Queen; Swietlinski v. The Queen", (1981-82) 24 The Criminal Law Quarterly 49-65;

CÔTÉ-HARPER, Gisèle, 1942-, Pierre Rainville, 1964-, et  Jean Turgeon, 1951-, Traité de droit  pénal canadien, 4^e édition refondue et augmentée, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 1998, lv, 1458 p., voir en particulier les pp. 1031-1100, ISBN: 2894512589;

COUGHLAN, Stephen G., "Annotation: R. v. Ewanchuk, (1999) 22 C.R. (5th) 1 (Ont. C.A.)", (1999) 22 C.R. (5th)  6;

COTLER, Irwin, "War Crime and the Finta Case", (1995) 6 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 577-646, and see in particular "Did the Court Err in its Characterization of the 'Obedience to Superior Orders' and 'Mistake of Fact' Defences?", at pp. 632-635;

Criminal Code / Code criminel, available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/  (accessed on 5 October 2007) et disponible à http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/home (visité le 5 octobre 2007);

Criminal Code -- Annotated used by practioners/ Code criminel annoté utilisé par les practiciens

    in English (published every year) /en anglais:

  GOLD, Allan D., The Practioner's Criminal Code, Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2008;


GREENSPAN, Edward L. and Marc Rosenberg, annotations by, Martin's Annual Criminal Code 2008, Aurora: Canada Law Book Inc.;

WATT, David and Michelle Fuerst, annotations by, The 2008 Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code, Toronto: Carswell, A Thomson Company;

COURNOYER, Guy et Gilles Ouimet, Code criminel annoté 2008, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, une société Thomson;

DUBOIS, Alain et Philip Schneider, Code criminel et lois connexes annotés 2008, Brossard: Publications CCH Ltée;

DELISLE, R.J., “Annotation: R. v. Park, (1995) 39 C.R. (4th)  287”, (1995) 39 Criminal Reports (4th) 287 [deals with mistake of fact as to consent for sexual offences];

Droste v. The Queen, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 208;

DUBBER, Markus Dirk,  "Commentary" in Don Stuart, 1943-,  R.J. Delisle and Allan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, v, 574 p., at pp. 156-182, see "Mistake of Fact" at pp. 175-176, ISBN: 045927077X;  Research Note: commentary on Stuart, Don's proposals on the General Part in his article "A Case for a General Part", infra;

EWASCHUK, E.G. (Eugene G.), Criminal pleadings and practice in Canada, 2nd ed.,Aurora (Ont.) : Canada Law Book, 1987-, 4 v. (loose-leaf), and see vol. 2, Part "21: 6000  Mistake of Fact";  ISBN: 088804013X;

FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL WORKING GROUP ON HOMICIDE, Final Report of the Federal/Provincial Working Group on Homicide, [Ottawa], [Department of Justice Canada], June 1990, updated April 1991, xii, 170 p., and see "Recommendation 17  Mistake of Fact" at pp. 81-82 (Co-Chairmen: Howard F. Morton,  Ministry of the Attorney General, Province of Ontario and Jean-François Dionne, Quebec Department of Justice); copy of this report was obtained by François Lareau under an Access to Information Act request response dated November 9, 1998, file A-98-00183 from the Department of Justice Canada; also available in French / aussi disponible en français : Groupe de travail fédéral-provincial sur l'homicide, Rapport final du groupe de travail fédéral-provincial sur l'homicide, [Ottawa], [Ministère de la Justice Canada], juin 1990, révisé avril 1991, xii, 172 p. et voir "Recommandation 17 Erreur de fait", aux pp. 84-85 (Co-Présidents:  Howard F. Morton, Ministère du Procureur général de l'Ontario et Jean-François Dionne, Ministère de la Justice du Québec); copie de ce rapport a été obtenu par François Lareau dans la réponse en date du 9 novembre 1998 de sa demande à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information, au Ministère de la Justice Canada, dossier A-98-00183;

FERGUSON, Gerry, "Recent Developments in Canadian Criminal Law", (2000) 24(4) Criminal Law Journal 248-263, see "Consent,  mistaken belief in consent and sexual assault" at  pp. 257-259;
 

FERGUSON, Gerry  A. and John C. Bouck, Canadian Criminal Jury Instructions (CRIMJI), 3rd edition, vol. 2, Vancouver (British Columbia) : Continuing Legal Education Society of British  Columbia, 1994-,  ISBN: 0865047715, see "CRIMJI  Mistake of Fact - Honest Belief” at 8.44;

R. v. Finta, 1994 CanLII 129 (S.C.C.), Cory, J.; available at  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1994/1994canlii129/1994canlii129.html  (accessed on 29 September 2007);

FORBES, Brian N., "Mistake of Fact with Regard to Defences in Tort Law", (1970) 4 Ottawa Law Review 306-311; 

FORTIN, Isabelle et Valérie Lessard, "Le critère de vraisemblance en matière d'erreur sur le consentement dans les cas d'agression sexuelle", (1996) 10 Revue juridique des étudiants et étudiantes de l'Université Laval ( R.J.E.U.L) 177 (1 p. seulement); il s'agit du sommaire d'un travail de recherche de 35 pages, numéro 96-15 que l'on peut commander;
 

FORTIN, Jacques et Louise Viau, "La réforme de la responsabilité pénale par la Cour suprême du Canada", (1979) 39 Revue du Barreau 526-558, voir "Erreur de fait" aux pp. 543-550 et 556;

___________Traité de droit pénal général, Montréal: Éditions Thémis, 1982, xi, 457 p.;

FRIEDLAND, M.L. (Martin Lawrence), 1932-,  and Kent Roach, 1961-, Criminal Law and Procedure : Cases and Materials, 8th ed., Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 1997,  xxvii, 1020 p., ISBN: 0920722962, see on mistake of fact, pp. 601-634; note: there is also a 9th ed., published by Kent Roach, Patrick Healy and Gary T. Trotter, Criminal law and procedure : cases and materials, 9th ed., Toronto : Emond Montgomery Publications, 2004, xxiv, 1068 p., ISBN:1552391183, and see table of contents at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/g4/0/1552391183_4647in.pdf  (accessed on 30 September 2007);

FUERST, Michelle K., Defending Sexual Offences, 2nd ed., Carswell, 2000, ix, 162  p., see Chapter 8, "The Defences of Consent and Mistaken Belief in Consent", at pp. 71-78 (series; Carswell practice guides), ISBN: 0459260839; copy at the Supreme Court of Canada, KF9325 F84 2000;

GALLOWAY, Donald, “Annotation: R. v. Moreau (1986), 51 C.R. (3d)  209 (Ont.C.A.)”, (1986) 51 C.R. (3d) 210-211;

GALLOWAY, Donald, “Annotation: R. v. Sansregret (1983), 37 C.R. (3d) 45 (Man. C.A.)”, (1984) 37 C.R. (3d) 45-46;

GANS, Jeremy, "When Should the Jury be Directed on the Mental Element of Rape", (1996) 20 Criminal Law Journal 247-266; important part dealing with Canadian law; defence of mistake of fact; important Canadian content;

HORWITZ, Stephen, Research paper on cases  and materials on ignorance of law and mistake of fact prepared by Stephen Horowitz for the Law Reform Commission of Canada,  [Ottawa] : Law Reform Commission, 1977, ii, 29 p.; copy at the National Library, Ottawa; cited in Law Reform Commision of Canada, Fourteenth Annual Report 1984-1985, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1985, 52, [3], p. at p. 36 (under the title: Cases  and Materials on Ignorance of Law and mistake of Fact , ISBN: 0662539575;

INSTITUTE OF LAW RESEARCH AND REFORM, Defences to Provincial Charges, Edmonton: The Institute of Law Research and Reform, March 1984, ii, 123 p., see "Mistake of Fact" at pp. 60-63 (series; Report No. 39);

KAMEL-TOUEG, Nabil, Précis de droit pénal général - Droit pénal I, 2e édition, Mont-Royal (Province of Québec) : Modulo Édiiteur, 1994, ix, 242 p.,  ISBN: 2891135024;

LAPOINTE, Pierre, "Les infractions criminelles", dans Barreau du Québec, École, Droit pénal: Infractions, moyens de défense et peine, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2007, aux pp. 54-121 et  voir les "défenses d'erreur" pour les crimes sexuels aux pp. 90-92 (erreur sur l'âge et le consentement) (Collection; Collection de droit 2007-2008; vol. 12), ISBN: 9782896350322; copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 385 ZB5 C681 v. 12 1007-08; note: voir aussi la contribution de BOURQUE, supra, dans le même livre;
 

The best way to state the distinction is to employ a contrafactual conditional.  If the actor knew the side effect was going to occur, would he act in the same way?  If yes, then the actor is reconciled to the side-effect. 22

____________ Légitime défense et théorie, thèse LL.M., Université d'Ottawa, 1992, xii, 335 p., et voir les pp. 127-198 sur la légitime défense putative (directeur: André Jodouin);

- Jury, sommaire (1 p.) et résumé (4 p.);
- English Synopsis
- pp. i-xii et 1-126;
- pp.127-221;
- pp.222-335;

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, The General Part -- Liability and Defences, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1982, [ix], 204 p., and see "Mistake or Ignorance of Fact", at pp. 71-76 (series; Working Paper; 29), ISBN: 0662514297; available at my Digital Library http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; information on the French version/informations sur la version française, COMMISSION DE RÉFORME DU DROIT DU CANADA, Partie générale -- responsabilité et moyens de défense, Ottawa: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1982, [x], 239 p., (Collection; Document de travail; 29); ISBN: 0662514297;

___________Recodifying Criminal Law: Volume I, Ottawa:  Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986, [xiii],117 p., (series; Report; 30), ISBN: 0662547322; available at my Digital Library http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; information on the French version/informations sur la version française, COMMISSION DE RÉFORME DU DROIT DU CANADA, Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal: Volume I, Ottawa: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1986, [12], 131 p. (Collection; rapport; 30), ISBN: 0662547322;

_____________ Recodifying Criminal Law (Revised and Enlarged Edition of Report 30), Ottawa:  Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1987, [16], 213 p., see "Lack of Knowledge", "Mistake of Fact"and "Exception", at p. 30;  "Mistaken Belief as to Defence" at pp. 41-42; "Different Crime from That Furthered", at p. 47; and "Alternative Convictions", at pp. 47-48 (series; Report; 31), ISBN: 0662547578; available at my Digital Library http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; information on the French version/informations sur la version française, COMMISSION DE RÉFORME DU DROIT DU CANADA, Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal (Édition révisée et augmentée du rapport n^o 30) , Ottawa: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1987, [16], 233 p. (Collection; rapport; 31), ISBN: 0662547578;
 

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF SASKATCHEWAN, Proposals for Defences to Provincial Offences: Report to the Minister of Justice,  Saskatoon : Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, December 1986, 18 p., see "Common Law Defences";

LIBMAN, Rick,  1956-, Libman on regulatory offences in Canada, Saltspring Island, BC : Earlscourt Legal Press, c2002-, 1 v. (loose-leaf), see in partuclar Chapter 4, "Public Welfare Offences Involving Mens Rea"; Chapter 5, "Absolute Liability Offences"; Chapter 6, "Strict Liability Offences", Chapter 7, "The Defence of Due Diligence"; and Chapter 8, "Other Defences" (8.7,  Mistake of Fact; 8.8, Lack of Mens Rea), ISBN: 0968233864; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 1292 A6 L53 2002;

LUCAS, David, The Rule of Law and Defences of Justification and Excuse: Some Problems Areas, LL.M. thesis, University of Montreal, Faculty of Law, July 1981, vi, 262 p., see "self-defence, justification or excuse" at pp. 123-141 and "Mistake and its effect on a claim of self-defence", pp. 141-182;

MacDONALD, Donald, 1952-, Rape and Consent -- The Defense of Mistake of Fact,  prepared for the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Ottawa, Library of Parliament, 1982, 12 leaves; copy at the Library of Parliament, J 103 H7 1980/83 L4 226; deals with the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Papajohn, [1980] 2 Supreme Court Reports 120 and Bill C-53 amending the Criminal Code for sexual offences;

MARCOTTE, Alain,  "Les moyens de défense en matière pénale dans le contexte de l'obligation de protection du travailleur, victime potentielle",  dans Développements récents en droit de la santé et sécurité au travail, 2001, Cowansville (Québec): Éditions Yvon Blais, 2001, xii, 308 p. aux pp. 171-204 (Collection; Service de la formation permanente Barreau du Québec; vol. 148), ISBN: 2895414700; voir "L'erreur de fait raisonable" aux pp. 194-196; droit pénal provincial;

MARIN, André, "When is an 'Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent'  NOT an 'Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent' ", (1995) 37 The Criminal Law Quarterly 451-460 [Table of Contents: "Introduction.  The Impact of Seaboyer.  Section 276 and the Claimed 'Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent'. Conclusion"];

McCALLA, W., "Transferred Intent in Murder", (1981) 18 C.R. (3d) 66-74; discusses also aberratio ictus;

McKINNON, G.D. (Gil D.), "Mistake of Fact", May 15, 1991, 26 p., (series; Working Paper, Canadian Bar Association, National Criminal Justice Sextion, Committee on on Criminal Code Reform; number 3);  paper prepared for the The Canadian Bar Association Task Force, mentioned in The Canadian Bar Association Task Force, The Canadian Bar Association Task Force Report: Principles of Criminal Liability - Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association,  [1992], x, 190 p., at p. 189;  ISBN: 0920742335; available from the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa; copy at the University of Montreal, Library of the Faculty of Law, call number: HAAD W926 v. o3 1991;

MEWETT, Alan W., 1930-, "The Reckless Rape", (1975-76) 18 The Criminal Law Quarterly 418-420;

"Thus, whether the mistake is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' is not the right way of putting the problem; nor whether rape is an offence of general or specific intent.  What the jury should be instructed is to convict the accused if they find that he knew the woman was not consenting or if they find that he was reckless as to whether she consented or not and, in the latter question, all the circumstances, such as the consumption of alcohol, the conduct of the woman, or the time and place of the episode, must be considered." (p. 420)

OLIVER, V.L., "Ignorance or Mistake of Fact as a Defence in Military Law", (January 1957) The JAG Journal 13-16;

Pappajohn v. The Queen, 1980 CanLII 13 (S.C.C.); available in English /disponible en français à  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii13/1980canlii13.html

PARKER, Graham, E., 1933-, "Annotation: Mistake of Fact versus Transferred Intent" (1976) 32 C.R.N.S. 150-162;

PARENT, Hugues, 1970-, "La négligence criminelle en droit pénal canadien: analyse descriptive et critique d'un concept en pleine évolution", (May/mai 2006) 10(3) Canadian Criminal law Review / Revue canadienne de droit pénal 259-298, et voir "L'erreur" aux pp. 271-277;

___________ Traité de droit criminel, Tome 1. L'acte volontaire et les  moyens de défense, Montréal : Éditions Thémis, 2003, xxviii, 587 p., voir "L'erreur de fait" aux pp. 283-327, ISBN: 2894001703;

___________Traité de droit criminel, Tome Premier:  L'imputabilité, 2e édition, Montréal : Éditions Thémis, 2005, xxxii, 1023 p., voir "L'erreur de fait", aux pp. 365-438, ISBN: 2894001703; copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 9220 ZA2 P39 2005, t. 1, c. 01;

PICKARD, Toni, "Culpable Mistakes and Rape: Harsh Words on Pappajohn", (1980) 30 University of Toronto Law Journal  415-420;

____________"Culpable Mistakes and Rape: Relating Mens Rea to the Crime", (1980) 30 University of Toronto Law Journal  75-98;

POPPLE, A.E., “Annotation: Mistake as a defence”, (1955) 20 C.R. 297-300;

“Practice Note: Defence of honest belief”, (1964) 43 C.R. 228;

“Practice Note: Honest belief as a defence”, (1963) 40 C.R. 145;

QUIGLEY, Tim, "Annotation: R. v. Slater, (2005) 31 C.R. (6th) 112 (Saskatchewan Court of Appeal)", (2005) 31 Criminal Reports (6th) 113; charge of obtaining sexual services and mistake as to age defence;

okR. c. Trottier, 2002 CanLII 41589 (QC C.Q.), disponible à http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2002/2002canlii41589/2002canlii41589.html (vérifié le 19 octobre 2007);

[25]           La poursuite a prouvé les éléments essentiels de l'infraction: le défendeur a utilisé de façon intentionnelle la force sur le bénéficiaire, sans son consentement.

[26]           Il s'agit maintenant de décider si le défendeur était justifié, pour des motifs raisonnables, de recourir à la force. De plus, il faut déterminer si le geste présente un caractère excessif.

[27]           Le Tribunal doit en premier lieu examiner si le défendeur était autorisé par la loi à utiliser la force en raison de ses fonctions. Autrement dit, l'article 25 du Code criminel est-il applicable?

[28]            Outres les dispositions du Code criminel, les procureurs ne réfèrent le Tribunal à aucune source législative, jurisprudentielle ou doctrinale à l'appui de leur thèse respective.

[29]           La défense s'appuie essentiellement sur la description de tâches du préposé aux bénéficiaires, prévoyant notamment ce qui suit: «Intervenir physiquement lorsque nécessaire. Assurer la sécurité sur le département».

[30]           Le Tribunal n'est pas convaincu que cette description correspond à une autorisation prévue par la loi. Après tout, une description de tâches est un document négocié entre des parties, assimilable à un contrat. Comme l'écrit la juge Bergeron dans Procureur général du Québec c. D.B., un protocole d'intervention, prévoyant le recours à la force, n'est pas une loi et ne peut autoriser ce qui est légalement proscrit[3].

[31]           L'autorisation, au sens de l'article 25, doit nécessairement trouver une assise dans la loi.

[32]           Le Tribunal trouve un premier élément de réponse dans l'admission des parties: le bénéficiaire est hospitalisé légalement pour suivre des traitements psychiatriques.

[33]           Or, l'article 118.1 de la Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux[4], permet le recours à la force comme mesure de contrôle d'une personne dans un établissement. Ce recours n'est cependant possible «…que pour l'empêcher de s'infliger ou d'infliger à autrui des lésions. L'utilisation d'une telle force doit être minimale et exceptionnelle et doit tenir compte de l'état physique et mental de la personne.»

[34]           De plus, le Tribunal tient compte de la Loi sur la protection des personnes dont l'état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui[5] et des articles 26 à 31 du Code civil du Québec. La doctrine enseigne que le cadre d'intervention prévu par ces dispositions «…peut entraîner la privation de liberté pour un individu et sa détention contre son gré, pour une durée indéterminée, dans un hôpital.»[6]

[35]           Si un bénéficiaire, en vertu de la loi, peut être privé de sa liberté, des mesures doivent nécessairement être prises pour rencontrer cet objectif.

[36]           De telles mesures peuvent entraîner l'utilisation d'une force raisonnable, lorsque les circonstances le commandent, pour la sécurité du bénéficiaire et des autres patients. Le Tribunal interprète dans ce sens le mot «lésions» de l'article 118.1.

[37]           Selon cette logique, le Tribunal conclut que le défendeur est une personne autorisée par la loi à utiliser la force nécessaire, en raison de ses fonctions, selon l'article 25 du Code criminel.

[38]           Cette interprétation de la loi colle d'ailleurs à la description de tâches et aux témoignages entendus. Guy Privé, préposé aux bénéficiaires, Lise Caron, infirmière auxiliaire, Roger Tremblay, assistant infirmier chef, et le défendeur, ont déclaré au Tribunal qu'il arrive au personnel, en certaines circonstances, pour des raisons de sécurité, d'intervenir physiquement à l'endroit des bénéficiaires.

[39]           Vu cette conclusion concernant l'application de l'article 25 du Code criminel, il ne sera pas nécessaire de décider si le bénéficiaire est un intrus au sens de l'article 41. [...]¸"

ROSENBERG, Marc, "Mistake of Fact and Law" in National Criminal Law Program Substantive Criminal Law, vol. 3, St. John's Newfoundland, 1986, pp. A1-A39; Research Note: this program of substantive criminal Law  is given every two or three years by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada so there is a more recent version but not necessarily by the same author;

ROY, Simon, 1959-, L'erreur de fait attribuable à l'intoxication comme moyen de "défense" en droit criminel canadien, thèse LL.M., Université Laval, 2001, viii, 166 feuilles; bibliographie aux pp. 156-166;  monsieur Roy est professeur de droit à l'Université de Sherbrooke;

RUTHERFORD, Douglas, "But honestly, I didn't know ...", in National criminal law program (2001 : Charlottetown, P.E.I.), ed., National criminal law program / The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Charlottetown : Federation of Law Societies, 2001, in vol. 2 of 2; copy at Department of Justice Canada, Prairies Region, Edmonton Office, Law Library, call number: KF 9655 N36 2001; title noted but not consulted yet;

SCHABAS, William A., Les infractions d'ordre sexuel, Éditions Yvon Blais, 1995, 400 p., ISBN: 2890739791;

SHADLEY, Richard, "Mistake" in National Criminal Law Program: Substantive Criminal Law, Winnipeg, Man.: The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 1996, vol. 2 of 2, section 16.1, 13 p;  Notes: "University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, July 15 to 19, 1996"; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada; does it deal with mistake of fact also?---------------
 

SHEELY, E., “The Defence of Mistake...”, on reserve at the desk of Fauteux Library, University of Ottawa # ZZ Q 0446 (as of Oct. 1997); note: I did not get full title but the title also mention the proposal of codification;--------------------------

SHEEHY, Elizabeth, and Christine Boyle, "Justice L'Heureux-Dubé and Canadian Sexual Assault Law: Resisting the Privaitization of Rape", in Elizabeth Sheehy, ed., Adding Feminism to Law: The
Contributions of Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Toronto: Irwin Law, 2004, viii, 390 p., at pp. 247-283, ISBN: 1552210855; copy at the Library of Parliament, Br.B KE 8248 L44 A73;

 
SIMMONS, Anne Marie, "Mistake", in National Criminal Law Program (2004 : Halifax, N.S.), Dalhousie University, Faculty of Law, and Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Substantive criminal law : 2004 National Criminal Law Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 12 to 16, 2004 / presented by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in conjunction with the Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University, [s.l. : s.n.], 2004, 3 v., in volume 2, Tab 13.1, 15 p.; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada KF9220 ZA2 N38 2004; 
 

SMART, W.B., "Mistake" in National Criminal Law Program: Substantive Criminal Law (1993: Montreal), [ed.],  National Criminal Law Program, The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Montreal (PQ): Federation of Law Societies, 1993, 2 volumes; information from  http://gate.library.ualberta.ca/ (The GATE:  NEOS Libraries' Catalogue) as seen on 11 November 2000; document not consulted;

SNIVELY, Pamela, "Mistake of Fact" brief presented to CANADA, Chambre des Communes/House of Commons,Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General/ Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, Issue/Fasicule 2: June 15, 1992, at pp. 2A:26 to 2A:33;  the French version/ la version française "L'erreur de fait" se trouve aux pp. 2A:140 à 2A:151;
 

STUART, Don, 1943-, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 5th ed., Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, xix, 815 p., ISBN: 978 0779812950;

__________ "A Case for A General Part" in Don Stuart, 1943-,  R.J. Delisle and Allan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, v, 574 p., at pp. 95-145, see "Mistake of Fact" at pp. 118-119,  ISBN: 045927077X; 

___________“Annotation: R. v. Bulmer (1987) 58 C.R. (3d) 48 (S.C.C.)”, (1987) 58 C.R. (3d) 49-50;
 

___________"Annotation: R. v. Cornejo, (2004) 18 C.R. (6th) 124 (Ont. C.A.)", (2004 18 Criminal Reports (6th) 126-127; mistaken belief in consent, s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code;

___________"Annotation: R. v. Ewanchuk, (1998) 13 C.R. (5th) 324 (Alta. C.A.), (1998) 13 C.R. (5th) 330-331; deals with consent for a sexual offence;

___________"Annotation: R. v. Livermore, (1994) 31 C.R. (4th) 374 (Ont. C.A.)", (1994) 31 Criminal Reports  (4th) 375-376; "mistaken belief defence to sexual assault; air of reality test not necessary to be supported by source other than the accused"];
 

__________"Annotation: R. v. Livermore, (1996) 43 C.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)", (1996) 43 Criminal Reports (4th) 5-6;

___________"Annotation R. v. O. (M.), (2001) 36 C.R. (5th) 258 (S.C.C.)", (2001) 36 C.R. (5th) 259;

___________“Annotation: R. v. Osolin (1994) 26 C.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)”, (1994) 26 C.R. (4th) 7-9;

___________“Annotation: R. v. Roche, (1984) 40 C.R. (3d) 138 (Ont. County Ct.)”, (1984) 40 C.R. (3d) 138-139;

___________"Annotation: R. v. Roche, (1985) 46 C.R. (3d) 160  (Ont. C.A.)", (1985) 46 C.R. (3d) 161; on interpretation of s. 246.1 of the Criminal Code and the defence of mistake of fact as to consent;
 

___________"Annotation: R. v. Went, (2005) 25 C.R. (6th) 350 (British Columbia Supreme Court) 350", (2005) 25 Criminal Reports (6th) 352-353;
 

___________"Ewanchuk: Asserting 'No Means No' at the Expense of Fault and proportionality Principles", (1999) 22 Criminal Reports (5th series) 39-49;

____________"Sexual Assault: Substantive Issues Before And After Bill C-49", (1993) 35 The Criminal Law Quarterly 241-263;

____________"Pappajohn: Safeguarding Fundamental Principles", (1980-81) 26 McGill Law Journal 348-361;

VANDERVORT, Lucinda,  "The Defence of Belief in Consent: Guidelines and Jury Instructions for Application of Criminal Code Section 265(4)", (2005) 50 The Criminal Law Quarterly 441-452;
 

___________"Honest Beliefs, Credible Lies, and Culpable Awareness: Rhetoric, Inequality, and Mens Rea in Sexual Assault", (Spring 2004) 42(4) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 625-660;  available at  http://www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/42_4_vandervort.pdf  (accessed on 30 September 2007);
 

__________"Sexual Assault: Availability of the Defence of Belief in Consent", (2005) 84 The Canadian Bar Review 89-105;
 

VERDUN-JONES, Simon N. (Simon Nicholas), 1947-,  Criminal Law in Canada: Cases, Questions & The Code, 4th ed., Thomson/Nelson, 2006,  xvi, 332 p., see Chapter 9, "Mistake of Fact, Consent, and Mistake of Law as Defences to a Criminal Charge" at pp. 212-242, ISBN: 0176407170; copy at the Library of Parliament, Br.B  KE 8809 V47 2007;
 

WATT,  David, 1948-, Ontario Specimen Jury Instructions (Criminal), Toronto: Thomson/Carswell,  [2003], xiii, 1101 p., see "Final 73, Mistake", at p. 1045, ISBN: 0459254928; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 9682 W38 2003 c. 01;

__________ "The Relationship between Mistake of Fact, Wilful Blindness and Recklessness - John Henry Sansregret v. The Queen, unreported, May 9, 1985 (S.C.C.) in Criminal Law Audio Series, Toronto: Criminal Law Audio Series, 1985, tape 6, side 1, # 1, 20 minutes on audio cassette;

___________"The Submissions of Defences to the Jury: General principles and Mistake of Fact Cases.  Daniel Robert Laybourn, Edwin Hanson Bulmer and Richard Ray Illingworth v. Her Majesty the Queen, unreported, June 4, 1987 (S.C.C.).  Her Majesty the Queen and James Douglas Robertson, unreported June 4, 1987 (S.C.C.)"   in Criminal Law Audio Series,  Toronto: Legal Audio Services of Canada Ltd, 1987, audio cassette, 1987, tape five, side one and two, 60 minutes;

WEILER, Joseph M., “Regina v. Kundeus:  The Saga of Two Ships Passing in the Night”, (1976) 14 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 457-480;

WEILER, Paul,"The Supreme Court of Canada and the Doctrines of Mens Rea", (1971) 49 The Canadian Bar Review 280-363, see "The Reach of Fault: Herein of Mistake of Fact and of Law" at pp. 316-323;

WILLIAMS, John M., "Mistake of Fact: the Legacy of Pappajohn v. The Queen, (1985) 63 The Canadian Bar Review 597-628;
 

II-  Comparative Law / Droit comparé
 

ALEXANDER, Dolly F., "Twenty Years of Morgan: A Criticism of the Subjective View of Mens Rea and Rape in Great Britain", (1995) Pace International Law Review 207-246;

ALEXANDER, Larry, "Mistake", in Joshua Dressler, ed., Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 2nd ed., New York: Macmillan Reference USA, Gale Group/Thomson Learning, 2002, at pp. 1014-1019, ISBN: 002865322X (vol. 3) and 002865319X (set of 4 volumes); article available in a different format at http://law.jrank.org/pages/1600/Mistake.html  (accessed on 6 October 2007);

THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Official Draft and Revised Comments), Part I - General Provisions §§1.01 to 2.13, Philadelphia: The American Law Institute, 1985, liii, 420 p., see "Section 2.04.  Ignorance or Mistake", at pp. 267-280;
 

___________Model Penal Code: Proposed Official Draft, Philadelphia: The American Law Institute, 1962, xxii, 346 p., see "Subsection 1.13(10) and section 2.04;

"Section 1.13 General Definitions.

In this Code, unless a different meaning plainly is required:
.

"Section 2.04 Ignorance or Mistake.

(1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:

(a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or

(b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.

(2) Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.

(3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:

(a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or

(b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.

(4) The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (3) of this Section by a preponderance of evidence." (pp. 30-31)

AMIRTHALINGAM, Kumaralingam, "Mistake and Strict Liability", in Wing-Cheong Chan, Barry Wright, and Stanley Yeo, eds., Codification, Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code : the legacies and modern challenges of criminal law reform, Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT, USA : Ashgate, c2011, xiii, 379 p., at pp.109 to approx. 128; ISBN: 9781409424420 (hardback); title noted in my research but article not consulted yet (7 November 2011); 

ARCHARD, David, "The Mens Rea of Rape: Reasonableness and Culpable Mistakes" in Keith Burgess-Jackson, ed., A most detestable crime: new philosophical essays on rape, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, xv, 306 p., at pp. 213 to 229 (approx), ISBN: 0195120752 and 0195120760 (pbk.); no copy in the libraries of the Ottawa area;

ARISTOTE, Éthique de Nicomaque, traduction, préface et notes par J. Voilquin, Paris: Garnier Flammarion, 1965, 310, [3] p.; voir le Livre III, Chapitre 1; acessible à  http://www.darmaisin.com/96%20Textes%20classiques/Aristote_volonte.htm  (consulté le 29 septembre 2007);

"1. Puisque la vertu a rapport aux passions et aux actions, qu'on loue et blâme ce qui émane de notre volonté, tandis qu'on ne refuse pas son pardon et parfois même sa pitié à ce qui est accompli sans volonté de choix, peut-être est-il nécessaire de déterminer, puisque notre examen porte sur la vertu, ce qui est volontaire et ce qui est involontaire.

2. Du reste, cette étude ne manquera pas d'être utile aussi aux législateurs chargés de fixer les récompenses et les peines.

ARISTOTLE, Nichomachean Ethics, with an English translation by H. Rackham, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press and London: William Heinemann, 1934,  Book III, Chapter 1; available http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054&query=head%3D%233  (accessed on 29 September 2007);

1. Virtue however is concerned with emotions and actions, and it is only voluntary feelings and actions for which praise and blame are given; those that are involuntary are condoned, and sometimes even pitied. Hence it seems to be necessary for the student of ethics to define the difference between the Voluntary and the Involuntary; and this will also be of service to the legislator in assigning rewards and punishments.

2.  It is then generally held that actions are involuntary when done (a) under compulsion or (b) through ignorance...

13.  (b) An act done through ignorance is in every case not voluntary, but it is involuntary only when it causes the agent pain and regret: since a man who has actedthrough ignorance and feels no compunction at all for what he has done, cannot indeed be said to have acted voluntarily, as he was not aware of his action, yet cannot be said to have acted involuntarily, as he is not sorry for it. Acts done through ignorance therefore fall into two classes: if the agent regrets the act, we think that he has acted involuntarily; if he does not regret it, to mark the distinction we may call him a ‘non-voluntary’ agent--for as the case is different it is better to give it a special name.

14. Acting through ignorance however seems to be different from acting in ignorance; for when a man is drunk or in a rage, his actions are not thought to be done through ignorance but owing to one or other of the conditions mentioned, though he does act without knowing, and in ignorance. Now it is true that all wicked men are ignorant of what they ought to do and refrain from doing, and that this error is the cause of injustice and of vice in general.

15.  But the term ‘involuntary’ does not really apply to an action when the agent is ignorant of his true interests. The ignorance that makes an act blameworthy is not ignorance displayed in moral choice (that sort of ignorance constitutes vice)--that is to say, they result not from general ignorance (because that is held to be blameworthy), but from particular ignorance, ignorance of the circumstances of the act and of the things affected by it; for in this case the act is pitied and forgiven, because he who acts in ignorance of any of these circumstances is an involuntary agent.

16.  Perhaps then it will be as well to specify the nature and number of these circumstances. They are (1) the agent, (2) the act, (3) the thing that is affected by or is the sphere of the act; and sometimes also (4) the instrument, for instance, a tool with which the act is done, (5) the effect, for instance, saving a man's life, and (6) the manner, for instance, gently or violently.

17.  Now no one, unless mad, could be ignorant of all these circumstances together; nor yet, obviously, of (l) the agent--for a man must know who he is himself. But a man may be ignorant of (2) what he is doing, as for instance when people say ‘it slipped out while they were speaking,’ or ‘they were not aware that the matter was a secret,’ as Aeschylus said of the Mysteries; or that ‘they let it off when they only meant to show how it worked’ as the prisoner pleaded in the catapult case. Again (3) a person might mistake his son for an enemy, as Merope does; or (4) mistake a sharp spear for one with a button on it, or a heavy stone for a pumice-stone; or (5) one might kill a man by giving him medicine with the intention of saving his life; or (6) in loose wrestling hit him a blow when meaning only to grip his hand.

18.  Ignorance therefore being possible in respect of all these circumstances of the act, one who has acted in ignorance of any of them is held to have acted involuntarily, and especially so if ignorant of the most important of them; and the most important of the circumstances seem to be the nature of the act itself and the effect it will produce.

19.  Such then is the nature of the ignorance that justifies our speaking of an act as involuntary,given the further condition that the agent feels sorrow and regret for having committed it.

20.  An involuntary action being one done under compulsion or through ignorance, a voluntary act would seem to be an act of which the origin lies in the agent, who knows the particular circumstances in which he is acting.

21.  For it is probably a mistake to say that acts caused by anger or by desire are involuntary.

22.   In the first place, (1) if we do so, we can no longer say that any of the lower animals act voluntarily, or children either.

23.  Then (2) are none of our actions that are caused by desire or anger voluntary, or are the noble ones voluntary and the base involuntary? Surely this is an absurd distinction when one person is the author of both.

24.  Yet perhaps it is strange to speak of acts aiming at things which it is right to aim at as involuntary; and it is right to feel anger at some things, and also to feel desire for some things, for instance health, knowledge.

25.  Also (3) we think that involuntary actions are painful and actions that gratify desire pleasant.

26.  And again (4) what difference is there in respect of their involuntary character between wrong acts committed deliberately and wrong acts done in anger?

ARMAGOST, Stephanie, "An Innocent Mistake or Criminal Conduct: Children Dying of Hyperthermia in Hot Vehicules", (2001-2002) 23 Hamline Journal of  Public Law and Policy 109-144; copy at Ottawa University;

ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT PÉNAL (AIDP) (International Association of Penal Law) and Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali (ISISC) (International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences) and Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law (MPI), Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court -- Alternative to the ILC-Draft -- (Siracusa-Draft), prepared by a Committee of Experts Siracusa/Freiburg, July 1995, 88 p.; available at  http://web.archive.org/web/20050904120837/http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/forsch/straf/referate/sach/hispint/siracusa.pdf at  (accessed on 10 December  2005 and 2 October 2007 for web.archive)

"Art. 33 n
Mistake of Fact or Law

1. If the person would not be held guilty of the crime if the circumstances were as he reasonably believed, he is not punishable.

2. The person who commits a crime in the mistaken belief that he is acting lawfully is not punishable, provided that he has done everything under the circumstances which could reasonably be demanded of him to inform himself about the applicable law. If he could have avoided his mistake of law, the punishment may be reduced." (p. 53)

....

Art. 33 o
Superior Order

1. A person acting pursuant to an order of a government or a superior is not relieved of punishability, unless such order results in coercion or duress, mistake of fact or law.

2. A superior order may be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires."

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is a fault element other than negligence if—

(a)  when carrying out the conduct making up the physical element, the person is under a mistaken belief about, or is ignorant of, facts; and

(b) the existence of the mistaken belief or ignorance negates a fault element applying to the physical element.

(2)     In deciding whether a person was under a mistaken belief about facts, or was ignorant of facts, the trier of fact may consider whether the mistaken belief or ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances.

(1)  A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if—

        (a)   when carrying out the conduct making up the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and was under a mistaken but reasonable belief about the facts; and

        (b)  had the facts existed, the conduct would not have been an offence.

(2)     A person may be taken to have considered whether or not facts existed when carrying out conduct if—

(a)   the person had considered, on a previous occasion, whether the facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and

(b)   the person honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as the circumstances surrounding the previous occasion.

Note     Section 24 (Absolute liability) prevents this section applying to offences of absolute liability.

"[vol. 1, ]
18. Aborinal Customary Laws and Substantive Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Defences and Aboriginal Customary Laws
Other Defences...
432. Mistaken Belief. The relevance of mistaken belief to criminal responsibility differs depending on the kind of mistake, and on the offence. A mistake of law is, with certain exceptions, irrelevant: this rule, and the exceptions to it, are discussed below.[89] A mistake of fact as to a particular element of an offence may be relevant in several different ways. It may negative the intent necessary for the offence: for example, if the defendant mistakenly but honestly believed that the victim was consenting to sexual intercourse, the defendant cannot be guilty of rape. There is no requirement in such cases that the defendant’s belief be reasonable, provided it is shown to be genuine.[90] In other cases, there may be no requirement that the defendant believed in the existence (or was reckless as to the non-existence) of particular facts. However at common law it is a defence to most criminal charges that the defendant actually believed on reasonable grounds in the existence of facts which, if true, would have exonerated him from liability.[91] This defence applies especially to regulatory or statutory offences, many aspects of which are (apart from the defence) subject to a regime of strict liability. For present purposes, these offences are however of little or no relevance.

433. Mistake and Aboriginal Customary Laws. Mistaken or ‘unreasonable’ belief can be produced by adherence to a world-view based on traditional or customary beliefs or patterns of behaviour. Adherence to tradition or to customary laws is not to be equated with superstition, but the two may be associated, and when they are legal problems of considerable difficulty arise. For example an American Indian was convicted of manslaughter when he shot what he believed was a Wendigo, an evil spirit in human form.[92] Similar problems have arisen in Papua New Guinea with sorcery, although the courts have refused to entertain defences based, for example, on mistake of fact.[93] Equivalent problems do not seem to have been raised in Australian cases, at least not in the last fifteen years. There are certainly Aboriginal practices of ‘magic’ or ‘sorcery’,[94] but they do not seem to have had much impact in criminal cases. Eggleston suggests that a defence based on mistake may have been available to the defendants in the Skinny Jack case, but it was not in fact raised there.[95] It is unlikely that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact would be directly relevant in cases involving customary law issues. What is more likely is that mistaken assumptions or beliefs based on tradition may affect the defendant’s intent (in cases where mens rea is required), or his belief as to an appropriate response in cases of self-defence or provocation. Given the qualified nature of the ‘objective’ requirement for both defences, appropriate account could probably be taken of customary laws and traditional’ practices in such cases, under the existing law.[96]...
------

[89] para 434.

[90] See para 416-18.

[91] Thomas v R (1937) 59 CLR 279; Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536; R v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381; Howard 363-377. The position is substantially the same in the Code States: Qld, s 24; WA, s 24; Tas, s 14; NT, s 32.

[92] R v Machekequonabe (1894) 28 Ont 309. See Glanville Williams, ‘Homicide and the Supernatural’ (1949) 65 Law Q Rev 491; Howard, 41, 106.

[93] See RS O’Regan, ‘Sorcery and Homicide in Papua New Guinea’ (1974) 48 ALJ 76; Weisbrot (1982) 79-82; and see also the works by RB Seidman, ‘Mens Rea and the Reasonable African: The Pre-Scientific World-View and Mistake of Fact’ (1966) 15 ICLQ 1135, and ‘Witch Murder and Mens Rea: A Problem of Society under Radical Social Change’ (1965) 28 Mod L Rev 46.

[94] cf RM Berndt & CH Berndt, The World of the First Australians, 4th rev edn, Rigby, Adelaide, 1985, 319-335. The only instance is which ‘sorcery’ was mentioned in the cases collected in ACL RP6A was Case No 1, where D was said to feel himself ‘in danger from spirits who would take [his] kidney fat while asleep’: id, 4-5. This was taken into account by Justice Forster in sentencing, but on any view D’s act of manslaughter was wrongful in that case. On this question from a socio-medical viewpoint see J Reid, Sorcerers and Healing Spirits Continuity and Change in an Aboriginal Medical System, ANU Press, Canberra, 1983, esp 92-118; 1H Jones, ‘stereotyped aggression in a group of Australian Western Desert Aborigines’ (1971) 44 Br J Med Psychol 259; 1H Jones & DJ Home, ‘Psychiatric Disorders among Aborigines of the Australian Western Desert’ (1973) 7 Soc Sci & Med 219; JE Lemaire, The Application of Some Aspects of European Law to Aboriginal Natives of Central Australia, LLM thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, 1971, 118-126; J Cawte, Medicine is the Law, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1974, esp ch 6. See also LR Hiatt, Kinship and Conflict, ANU Press, Canberra, 1965 119-21 ; WL Warner, A Black Civilisation, Harper & Bros, London, 1937, ch 7, 8; B Spencer and FJ Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia, McMillan, London, 1899, ch 16; DB Rose, ‘Dingo Makes us Human: Being and Purpose Australian Aboriginal Culture’. Phd Thesis, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, March 1981, 372-3.

[95] Eggleston, 298.

[96] But the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court refused to treat sorcery as giving rise to a defence of provocation: Weisbrot (1982) 79. The Sorcery Act 1971 s 20 expressly allows sorcery to count as provocation, provided the ordinary villager in similar circumstances would have reacted in a similar fashion." (source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/31/Ch_18.html#fn89, accessed on 24 September 2007)

BADAR, Mohamed Elewa, "Mens Rea -- Mistake of Law & Mistake of Fact in German Criminal Law: A Survey for International Criminal Tribunals", (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review 203-246; available at http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1195/3/1MensReainGermanLawICLR2004%5B1%5DRevised.pdf  (accessed on 28 September 2007);
 

BANTEKAS, Ilias, "Defences in International Criminal Law", in Dominic McGoldrick, Peter Rowe, and Eric Donnelly, eds., The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues, Oxford (England)/Portland (Oregon): Hart Publishing, xviii, 498 p., at pp. 263-284, and see "Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Law", at pp. 281-282 (series; Studies in International Law; volume 5), ISBN: 1841132810; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KZ 6310 P47 2004;

BIENEN, Leigh, "Mistakes", (1977-78) 7 Philosophy anf Public Affairs 224-245; copy at Ottawa University, H 1 .P54  Location: MRT Periodicals;

BURCHELL, E.M., "Unreasonable Mistake of Fact as a Defence in Criminal Law", (1963) 80 South African Law Journal 46-52;

BURCHELL, Jonathan, "Mistake or Ignorance to the Causal Sequence - A New Aspect of Intention" (1990) 107 South African Law Journal 168-175;
 

BYRD, B. Sharon, "Putative Self-Defense and Rules of Imputation. In Defense of the Battered Woman" (1994) 2 Annual Review of Law and Ethics 283-306; abstract available at http://www.str2.jura.uni-erlangen.de/hruschka/JRE/vol02/a2-byrd.htm (accessed on 24 September 2007); are also published in Leo Katz, Michael S. Moore and Stephen J. Morse, eds., Foundations of Criminal Law, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, ix, 352 p. at pp. 260-271 followed by "Notes and Questions" at pp. 271-272 (series; Interdisciplinary Readers in Law), ISBN: 0195094956 (cloth) and 0195094964 (paper);

CAMPBELL, Colin, "Annotation: Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape", (1997) 46 A.L.R. (5th) 499-522; A.L.R. = American Law Reports;
 

CANALS, Jose M. and Henry Dahl, translated by, "Standard Penal Code for Latin America", (1990) 17 American Journal of Criminal Law 263-288; available at  http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/Latspc.htm; see articles 27-29; note de recherche: pour une traduction française du Code pénal type latino-américain, voir RAMIREZ, infra;

CASSESE, Antonio, International criminal law, Oxford; New York : Oxford University Press, 2003, lvi, 472 p., see "Mistake of fact" at pp. 251-255 (includes "Mistake of  fact and Superior Order" at pp. 253-255), ISBN: 0199261288 and  0199259119 (pbk); copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, K5000 C37 2003 c. 01; copy at Carleton University, floor 4, K5000 .C37 2003;
 

CAVALLARO, Rosanna, "A Big Mistake: Eroding the Defense of Mistake of Fact About Consent in Rape", (1996) 86 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 815-860;

CHAND, Hukm, Principles of the law of consent: with special reference to criminal law, including the doctrines of mistake, duress, and waiver: Bombay, Bombay education society's press, 1897, xviii, 581 p.; copy at Laval University, KPN/C454/1897; also available at other places in Canada;  available at http://www.archive.org/details/principlesoflawo00chaniala (accessed on 20 August 2007);

CHRISTOPHER, Russell L., "Mistake & Ignorance" in Christopher Berry Gray, ed., The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia, New York Garland Publishing, 1999, 2 volumes ( xxxviii, 950 p.), in vol.2, pp. 537-539 (series; Garland reference library of the humanities ; vol. 1743), ISBN: 0815313446;

___________"Mistake of Fact in the Objective Theory of Justification: Do Two Rights Make Two Wrongs Make Two Rights...?", (1994) 85 Journal of  Criminal Law and Criminology 295-332;
 

Code de droit canonique, Texte officiel et traduction française par La société internationale de droit canonique et de législations religieuses comparées avec le concours des Faculté de droit canonique de l'Université Saint-Paul d'Ottawa, Faculté de droit canonique de l'Institut catholique de Paris, Ottawa:  Service des Éditions de la Conférence des Évêques catholiques du Canada (C.E.C.C.), 1984, xxxii, 363 p., ISBN: 0889970971; note de recherche: voir les canons 1323, nn. 4, 5 et 6, 1324, § 1, n. 8 et 1325 aux pp. 229-230; ces dispositions sont aussi disponibles à  http://ledroitcriminel.free.fr/la_science_criminelle/les_sciences_juridiques/la_loi_penale/imputation/droit_canon_imputation.htm  (consulté le 27 septembre 2007);

"Can. 1323 -- N'est punissable d'aucune peine la personne qui, lorsqu'elle a violé une loi ou un précepte:
...
4° a agi forcée par une crainte grave, même si elle ne l’était que relativement, ou bien poussée par la nécessité ou pour éviter un grave inconvénient, à moins cependant que l’acte ne soit intrinsèquement mauvais ou qu’il ne porte préjudice aux âmes;

The Code of Canon Law in English translation Prepared by The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland in association with The Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand and The Canadian Canon Law Society, London (England): Collins, 1983, xv, 319 p.,  ISBN: 000599750X (cased) and 0005997577 (limp); see canons 1323, nn. 4, 5 and 6, 1324 § 1, n. 8 and 1325 at pp. 234-235; these provions are also available at http://www.stjamescatholic.org/ebooks/code_of_canon_law_1983.pdf  (accessed on 27 September 2007);

Corpus juris 2000 (version de Florence);

"Article 10 – Erreur (ancien article 11)

L’erreur sur les éléments constituant l’infraction exclut l’intention.  L’erreur sur la prohibition exclut la responsabilité au cas d’une erreur inévitable par un homme prudent et raisonnable. Si l’erreur était évitable, la sanction peut être diminuée, et le juge pourra donc ne pas prononcer la peine maximale encourue (voir article 14)." (disponible à  http://www2.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/art-frans.pdf, visionné le 3 mai 2004; voir aussi le site principal à http://www2.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/index1.htm)

Corpus juris 2000 (draft agreed in Florence);

"Article 10 – Error (previously Article 11)

Mistake as to the constituent elements of the offence excludes intention. Mistake as to the legal prohibition excludes liability if it would have inevitably been committed by a careful, sensible person. If the mistake was avoidable, the penalty may be reduced, and the judge may not impose the maximum penalty (see Article14)." (available at  http://www2.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/art-eng.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2004; see also main site at  http://www2.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/index1.htm)

CROSS, R., "Century Reflections on Prince's Case", (1975) 81 The Law Quarterly Review 205-222;   
 

CURLEY, E.M., "Excusing Rape", (Summer 1976) 5 Philosophy and Public Affairs 325-360;

DAMASKA, Mirjan, "Comment  by Dr. Mirjan Damaska Comparing Study Draft of Proposed new Federal Criminal Code to European Penal Codes", in Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Fedderal Criminal Laws, vol. III, Miscellaneous Memoranda and Guidelines for Conforming Title 18, Parts II-V, and other titles of the United States Code to the Proposals for a New Federal Criminal Code, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,  1971, at pp. 1477-1505, and see pp. 1488-1491; for the sections referred to in those pages, see NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, infra;

DAUBE, D., "Error and Accident in the Bible", (1949) 2 Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 189-213;

DELTMAR, Victoria J., "Culpable Mistakes in Rape: Eliminating the Defence of unreasonable mistake of fact as to victim consent", (1984-85) 89 Dickinson Law Review 473-499;
 

DINGWALL, Gavin, "Intoxicated Mistakes about the Need for Self-Defence", (January 2007) 70(1) The Modern Law Review 127-138;
 

DINSTEIN, Yoram, "Defences", in Gabrielle Kirk McDonald and Olivia Swaak-Goldman, eds., Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law.  The Experience of International and National Courts", vol. I, Commentary, The Hague-London-Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2000, xvi,705 p., at pp. 367-388; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, K5000 S83 2000, v. 1;388;

DRESSLER, Joshua, Understanding Criminal Law, 2nd ed., New York : Matthew Bender/Irwin, 1995, xli, 556 p., and see "Chapter 12 Mistakes of Fact", at pp. 133-145  (series; legal text series), ISBN: 0256193193; there is now a 4th ed.: Newark(NJ): LexisNexis, c2006, xxxiv, 649, [32] p. (series; the understanding series), ISBN: 082057001X;

DUTILE, Fernand N. and Harold F. Moore, "Mistake and Impossibility:Arranging a Marriage Between Two Difficult Partners", (1979) 74 Northwestern University Law Review 166-201;

ESTONIA, Penal Code, available at http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/07/6a/4d16963509db70c09d23e52cb8df.htm (accessed on 23 September 2007);

§ 17. Ignorance of circumstances which constitute necessary element of offence

(1) A person who at the time of commission of an act is unaware that a circumstance which constitutes a necessary element of an offence is not deemed to have committed the act intentionally. In such case the person shall be held liable for an offence committed through negligence in the cases provided by law.

(2) A person who at the time of commission of an act erroneously assumes circumstances which would constitute the necessary elements of an offence for which a more lenient punishment is prescribed, shall be liable for an intentional offence the commission of which the person intended.

(3) Ignorance of law shall not preclude intent or negligence.

§ 31. Error concerning circumstance which precludes unlawfulness

(1) An intentional act is not unlawful if at the time of commission of the act the person erroneously assumes circumstances which would preclude the unlawfulness of the act. In such case, the person shall be punished for an offence committed through negligence in the cases provided by law.

(2) A person who at the time of commission of an act is unaware of the circumstances which objectively preclude the unlawfulness of the act shall be held liable for an attempt. In such case, the court may apply the provisions of § 60 of this Code.

ETHIOPIA, The Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of  Ethiopia,  2004, available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/70993/75092/F1429731028/ETH70993.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2007);

FINGARETTE, Herbert,  "Alcoholism: Can Honest Mistake About One's Capacity for Self-Control Be an Excuse?", (1990) 13 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 77 (Part of the Special Issue: "Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility", vol. 13, numbers 1/2, 1990);

FINKEL, Norman J. and Jennifer L. Groscup, "When Mistakes Happen - Commonsense Rules of Culpability", (1997), 3(1) Public Policy & Law 65-125; no copy in Canadian libraries; 


FINKEL, Norman  J., Stephen .T. Maloney, Monique Z. Valbuena and  Jennifer .L. Groscup "Lay perspectives on legal conundrums: Impossible and mistaken act cases" (1995) 19(6) Law and Human Behavior 593-608;

FINKEL, Norman J. and Gerrod Parrott, Emotions and culpability: how the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself, Washington: American Psychological Association, c2006, xv, 312 p. and see chapter 10, "Where Self-Defense's Justification Blurs into Excuse: A Defensible Theory, with Fitting Verdicts, for Mistaken Self-defense, (series; The law and public policy), ISBN: 1591474167; title noted in my research but book not consulted yet (6 December 2006);

FLETCHER, George P.,  Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, xi, 223 p., ISBN: 0195121708 and 0195121716 (pbk.); for table of contents, see: Biddle Law catalogue, University of Pennsylvania; important contribution to the subject;

___________"Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False False Problem", (1988) 19 Rutgers Law Journal 649-670; important contribution to the subject;

____________Rethinking Criminal Law, Boston : Little, Brown, c1978, xxviii, 898 p., and see Chapter 9, "The Theory of Mistake", at pp. 683-758 (also deals with mistake of law);

FRYLING, Tina, "Mistake of Fact as a Criminal Defense to Criminal Liability",  in Richard A. Wright and J. Mitchell Miller, eds., Encyclopedia of Criminology,  Scarborough : Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2004, vol. 2, at pp. 1002-1003; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, HV 61017 E53 2005 REF;
 

GARRETT, Elisabeth, "Mistaken Mistakes", [October 1989]  New Zealand Law Journal 355-357;
 

GARVEY, Stephen P., "Two kinds of criminal wrongs",  (2003) 5(3)  Punishment and Society 279-294;

GILES, Marianne, "Self-Defence and Mistake: A Way Forward", (1990) 53 Modern Law Review 187-200;

GREAT BRITAIN, House of Commons, Bill 178, Criminal Code (Indictable Offences), 1878,  xviii, 218 p.; British Parliamentary Papers,  (1878), vol. 2, pp. 5-245; notes:  Bill drafted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen; first reading in the House of Commons on 14 May 1878 (introduced by the Attorney General Sir John Holker);

___________ CRIMINAL CODE BILL COMMISSION, Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Consider the Law Relating to Indictable Offences: With an Appendix Containing a Draft Code Embodying the Suggestions of the Commissioners, London: HMSO, 1879, 209 p.. (series; C.(Command); 2345), (President: C.B. Blackburn); also published  in British Parliamentary Papers, (1878-79), vol. 20, pp. 169- 378; see at pp. 18-19 of the command number paper, the comments of the Commissioners on section 25, ignorance of fact, in Stephen's Bill (Bill 178);

GROSS, Hyman, "Mistake"  in Sanford H. Kadish, ed.,  Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, vol. 3 of 4, New York: Free Press, 1983, pp. 1066-1073, ISBN: 0029181110 (set of 4 volumes);

__________A Theory of Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, xviii, 521 p., ISBN: 0195023498 and 0195023501 (pbk.),

GRUNSVEN, Paul R. Van, "Medical Malpractice or Criminal Mistake? -- An Analysis of Past and Current Criminal Prosecutions for Clinical Mistakes and Fatal Errors", (1997-99) 2 DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 1-54;

GÜNGÖR,  Dragana, "Mental Elements and  Mistake of Fact and  Law in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court", (18 July 2005) 1(1) Free Law Journal 21-30; available at http://www.fwpublishing.net/Files/Free_Law_Journal-Volume1Number1-18July2005.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2006);
 

HALL, Jerome, General Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd ed., Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill, c1960, xii, 642 p., and see Chapter 11, Ignorance and Mistake", at pp. 360-414;

____________"Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law", (1956-57) 33 Indiana Law Journal 1-44;
 

HARBOE, Nicolai, 1876-1943, Les conditions subjectives de la culpabilité, 3 tomes, Oslo: I. Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1930-34 (series; Skrifter Utgitt Av Det Norske Videnskaps-akademi i Oslo. Historisk-filosofisk klasse; 1930: no.4, 1931: no.1, and 1934: no.1), voir dans l'article de 1934 (tome 3), "Le crime par erreur" et  "Le crime par ignorance", et respectivement aux pp. 77-83 et  84-93; livre rare au Canada; copie à l'Université Queens, Kingston, Ontario;
 

HENNAU, Christiane et Jacques Verhaegen, "La faute non intentionnelle et sa réglementation dans les codes pénaux modernes", (1994) 74 Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie 568-580, voir en particulier la "Section IV: L'erreur fautive de fait et ses effets" aux pp. 574-576;

HENNING, Terese, Consent and mistaken belief in consent in Tasmaninan sexual offences trials, Hobart : University of Tasmania Law Press, c2000, 152 p. (series; University of Tasmania Law School / Occasional paper; no. 6); title noted in my research but book not consulted; no copy in Canada according to the AMICUS catalogue (verification of 6 August 2003)

"Occassional Paper No. 6: Consent and Mistaken Belief in Consent in the Tasmanian Sexual Offences Trials

This report is the second in a series of reports monitoring the operation of the 1987 reforms to the Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) and the Evidence Act 1910 (Tas). The purpose of the present study was to examine, in the context of sexual offences trials, the operation of the reforms to the definition of ‘consent’ in the Tasmanian Criminal Code 1924. It also examined the operation of the defence of mistaken belief in consent in these trials.

The Background to the reform and the defence of mistaken belief in consent under s 14 of the Code is discussed in Chapter 1; the research methodology and basic quantitative findings with respect to the sexual offences tried and the lines of defence encountered are dealt with in Chapter 2; Chapter 3 discusses the research findings with regard to the Crown construction of consent and key themes used by the defence to refute the Crown allegations of non-consent, to construct sexual contact as consensual and to lay a foundation for the defence of mistaken belief in consent. Chapter 4 discusses findings concerning trial judges’ summations and Chapter 5 presents the study’s conclusions and recommendations."

HERRING, Jonathan, "Mistaken Sex", [July 2005] The Criminal Law Review 511-524;
 

HIGGINS, Vanessa and A.J.A., "Self-defence  Murder -- self-induced intoxication -- mistaken belief as to threat -- mistake caused by intoxication -- reasonableness of belief -- whether defendant raising issue of self-defence to charge of murder entitled to be judged on basis of what he mistakenly believed to be the situation where mistaken belief brought about by self-induced intoxication … R v Hatton Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)…", [April 2006] Criminal Law Review 353-356; the case is reported by Vanessa at pp. 353-355 and the commentary by A.J.A. is at pp. 355-356;

HINCHLIFFE, Sara, "Morgan Reviewed: In Defence of Freedom of Will", (2002/2003) 6(1) Contemporary Issues in Law 37-46; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, periodicals; important contribution;

"[Abstract]

DPP v Morgan provides legal precedent in England and Wales for a defence to rape of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent', no matter how unreasonable the grounds for arriving at such a belief.  This principle has been the subject of much feminist criticism.  Many feminists claim that the Morgan defence privileges the experience of men over that of women -- in that even if a jury believes that the complainant did not consent to sex they must acquit a defendant so long as he did not intend to commit rape.  This article argues that Morgan must be retained if we are to defend civil liberties, uphold the principle of criminal responsibility, and argue that women are not passive victims of male sexuality.  Important protections of civil liberties fought for for hundreds of years are at risk if the Morgan principle is sacrificed." (source: table of contents at the beginning of  issue 1, volume 6)

MORISHITA, T. (Tadashi),  "Règlementation juridique dde l'erreur en droit pénal japonais, (mars 1979) Hiroshima Law Journal 1; article cité par Pradel, infra, p. 300;
 

HOLLEY, Dannye, "The Influence of the Model Penal Code's Culpability Provisions on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including Abolishing the Mistake of Fact Doctrine", (1997-98) 27 Southwestern University Law Review 229-263;
 

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.  EMPEROR (1765-1790 : Joseph II),  The Emperor’s new code of criminal laws. Published at Vienna, the 15th of January, 1787. Translated from the German, by an officer, London : printed for G. G. J. and J. Robinson, 1787, [3], vi-viii,110 p.; notes: Translation of Allgemeines Gesetz über Verbrechen 1787; available in the Eighteenth Century Collections Online, ESTC number T100992; 18th century microfilm reel # 677; source: British Library;

"5.  The want of free-will absolves the offender from any criminal accusation, in the following cases: ...

f. When the action has been committed through error, in which case no crime can be imputed to the offender, since, had he possessed proper information, he migh have conducted himself, as the laws and good principles directed him." (pp. 2-4)  

HOWARD, Colin, "The Reasonableness of Mistake in the Criminal Law", (1961-64) 4 University Queensland Law Jourmnal 45-56;
 

ISRAEL, Penal Law of Israel (626/1996) -Unofficial English Translation--"Penal Law--Draft Proposal and New Code," 30 Israel Law Review 5-27 (1996)

The Italian Penal Code Translated by Edward M. Wise in collaboration with Allen Maitlin.  Introduction by Edward M. Wise, Lttleton (Colorado): Fred B. Rothman and London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1978, xli, 249 p., see article 47 (series; American series of foreign penal codes; vol. 23), ISBN: 08377700434;

"Article 47.  Error of Fact.
    Error of fact as to the act which constitutes the offense shall preclude the actor's being punishable.  However, punishability shall not be precluded with respect to an error induced by negligence when the act is designated by law as a crime of negligence.

    Error of fact as to the act which constitutes a particular offense shall not preclude punishability for a different offense.

    Error as to a law other than the penal law shall preclude punishability when it causes an error of fact as to the act which constitutes the offense." (p. 16)

------

   L'errore sul fatto che costituisce il reato esclude la punibilità dell'agente. Nondimeno, se si tratta di errore determinato da colpa, 
la punibilità non è esclusa, quando il fatto è preveduto dalla legge come delitto colposo.

   L'errore sul fatto che costituisce un determinato reato non esclude la punibilità per un reato diverso.

   L'errore su una legge diversa dalla legge penale esclude la punibilità, quando ha cagionato un errore sul fatto che costituisce reato.
(http://www.usl4.toscana.it/dp/isll/lex/cp_l1.htm#L1t3c1, accessed on 3 August 2006)

JESCHECK, Hans-Heinrich, "The General Principles of International Criminal Law Set Out in Nuremberg, as Mirrored in the ICC Statute", (2004) 2(1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 38-55, and see "Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law", at pp. 46-47;

KAHAN, Dan M., "Is Ignorance of Fact an Excuse Only for the Virtuous?", (June 1998) 96(7) Michigan Law Review 2123-2128;

KEEDY, Edwin R., "Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law", (1908-09) 22 Harvard Law Review 75-96, see "Ignorance and Mistake of Fact" at pp. 81-88;
 

KELT, Maria and Herman von Hebel, "General Principles of Criminal Law and Elements of Crime", in Roy S. Lee, ed., ans Hakan Friman, Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, Herman von Hebel, and Darryl Robinson, associate editors, The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Ardsley (NY): Transnational Publishers, 2001, lxvi, 857 p., at pp. 19-40, and see "MISTAKE OF FACT AND MISTAKE OF LAW", at pp. 36-37, ISBN: 1571052097; copy at Ottawa University, FTX General KZ 6310 .I579 2001;
 

KNOOPS, Geert-Jan, Defenses in contemporary international criminal law, Ardsley (NY): Transnational Publications, 2001, xxxviii, 297 p., see "The defense of consent to sexual assault and mistake of fact" at pp. 104-108 (series; International and comparative criminal law series),  ISBN: 1571051511;

KOONTZ, Paul A., "Mistake of Fact as a defense to common law crimes", (1937) 41 Dickinson Law Review 115-120;
 
 
KOPPE, J. Melvin, "Criminal Law - Attempts - Mistake of Fact", (1936) 16 Boston University Law Review 199-204;

LAINGUI, André, La responsabilté pénale dans l'ancien droit: XVIe-XVIIIe siècle, Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1970, xii, 367 p., voir sur l'erreur de fait, les pp. 81-82 et 94-100 (Collection; Bibliothèque d'histoire du droit et droit romain, t. 17);

LEVERICK, Fiona, Killing in Self-Defence, Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2006, xxviii, 217 p., ISBN: 9780199283460, 019928346X (pbk.); title noted in my research but book not consulted yet (2 July 2007);

___________ "Mistake in Self-Defence after Drury", [2002], Part 1, The Juridical Review 35-48; copy at Ottawa University, KD 322 .J854  Location: FTX Periodicals;  

MACEDONIA, Criminal Code, available at http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=1&lid=6272 (accessed on 24 September 2007);

MENSA-BONSU, Henrietta, J.A.N., "The Defence of Mistake of Fact and Claim of Right Matters Arising from Republic V. Kwando II", (1996-1999) 20 University of Ghana Law Journal 125-136;

MILTON, J.R.L., "Reasonable Mistake of Fact as a Defence in Statutory Offences" (1971) 88 South African Law Journal 70-83; copy at the University of Ottawa, Law Library, FTX Periodicals, KR 0 .S69;

___________"Recent Cases, "A Stab in the Dark: A Case of Aberratio Ictus, (1968) 85 South African Law Journal 115-122;
 

MINKOWICH, Meyer, Mistake of Fact and Ignorance as a Defense in Criminal Law of the Talmud and English Common Law", PH.D. thesis., The Dropsie College, 1961, source: ADD X1961;  notes: in 1986, the Dropsie College  became the Annenberg Research Institute.  In 1993,  the Annenberg Research Institute merged into the University of Pennsylvania becoming the institutions Center for Advanced Judaic Studies; could be in hebrew, Ta`ut ka-`uvdah ve-i-yedi`ah ke-haganah be-mishpat pelili; Franklin Pennylvania Library;

MOSTAFA, Mahmoud M., Principes de droit pénal des pays arabes, Préface de Marc Ancel, Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1972,  iii, 190 p. et voir "L'erreur dans la justification" aux pp. 49-50 (collection; Les grands systemes de droit pénal contemporains; vol. 5); copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, FTX General;

MYERS, Larry W., "Reasonable Mistake of Age: A Needed Defense to Statutory Rape", (1965) 64 Michigan Law Review 105-136;

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, THE, Study Draft of a New Federal Criminal Code  (Title 18.  United States Code), Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970, lxiv, 344p.; notes: "Consists of materials under consideration by the Commission preparatory to its final report to the President and Congress in November of 1970." (source: Hollis catalogue, Harvard University); excerpts are to be read with part of the article of DAMASKA, reproduced supra;

[Code pénal allemand]
"ARTICLE 16
Erreur sur les circonstances de l'acte
(1) Si, au moment de la commission de l'acte l'auteur ignorait une circonstance qui constitue un des éléments constitutifs du délit, il n'agit pas intentionnellement.  Le caractère punissable de l'acte commis par imprudence n'en est pas affecté.

(2)  Celui qui, lors de la commission de l'acte, prévoit, par erreur, des circonstances qui constitueraient un des éléments constitutifs du délit par une disposition légale plus douce, ne peut être puni pour acte intentionnel qu'en application de cette loi plus douce." (p. 332)

"ARTICLE 35
Etat de nécessité en tant que cause d'excuse
(1) Agit sans culpabilité celui qui, en présence d'un danger pour la vie, la personne ou la liberté, danger qui ne peut être évité par aucun autre moyen, commet un acte illicite en vue de détourner le danger de lui-même, d'un parent ou d'un autre de ses proches.  La présente distinction n'est pas applicable s'il pouvait, selon les circonstances, être exigé de l'auteur qu'il accepte le danger notamment parce qu'il avait lui-même provoqué le danger ou parce qu'il se trouvait dans une situation juridique particulière; toutefois, la peine peut être atténuée en application de l'article 49, alinéa 1, lorsque l'auteur, eu égard à des rapports juridiques particuliers, ne devait pas accepter le danger.

(2) Si, lors de la commission de l'acte, l'auteur suppose, par erreur, l'existence de circonstances qui l'auraient excusé, en application de l'alinéa 1, il n'est puni que s'il ne pouvait pas éviter cette erreur.  La peine doit être atténuée conformément à l'article 49, alinéa 1." (p. 339)

------------

[Code pénal autrichien]

"Supposition erronée de l'existence d'un état de choses justificatif
ARTICLE  8 -- Quiconque suppose par erreur un état de choses, qui exclurait l'illicéité de l'acte, ne peut être puni pour avoir commis cet acte intentionnellement.  Il doit être puni pour commission (de l'acte) par négligence, si l'erreur tient à la négligence et si ladite commission par négligence est passible d'une peine." (p. 15)

"Excuse créée par l'état de nécessité
ARTICLE 10. -- (1) Quiconque commet un acte passible d'une peine pour écarter de lui-même ou d'un tiers un dommage grave le menaçant directement bénéficie d'une excuse, si la gravité du dommage dont l'acte en cause fait peser la menace n'est pas hors de proportion avec celle du dommage que ledit acte vise à écarter, et si l'on ne pouvait s'attendre, dans la situation de l'auteur, à un comportement différent de la part d'un homme attaché aux valeurs placées sous la protection du droit.

(2)  L'auteur ne bénéficie pas d'une excuse, s'il s'est exposé au danger délibérément, en l'absence d'un motif reconnu par le droit en vigueur.  L'auteur doit être puni pour avoir agi par négligence, si c'est par une erreur reposant sur sa négligence qu'il a supposé réunies les conditions qui auraient fait bénéficier son acte d'une excuse, et si une peine est prévue pour l'acte commis par négligence." (p. 16)
 

"§ 42. If any person has committed an act in a state of ignorance concerning circumstances that determine criminal liability or increase the penalty for the said act, such circumstances shall not be attributable to him.

If the ignorance can be ascribed to negligence, in cases in which negligence is punishable the penalty prescribed for such negligence shall be applicable.

O'CONNOR, Vivienne and Colette Rausch, eds., with Hans Joerg Albrecht and Goran Klemencic, Model codes for post-conflict criminal justice, Washington, D.C. : United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007-,  and see "Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law" at pp. 85-86, ISBN: 9781601270115 (pbk.: alk. paper); 1601270119 (pbk. : alk. paper); 9781601270122 (hardcover : alk. paper);  1601270127 (hardcover : alk. paper); available at http://books.google.com/books?id=FL3nJkyxDBkC&pg=PR23&dq=%22comparative++criminal+law%22&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=XSDxSPaCIoO6yAT4-aziAw&sig=ACfU3U0jIcI2f4BPr_OTvi5RqgnWG9DcMg#PPA78,M1 (accessed on 11 October 2008);
 

OKO, Okechukwu, "Unveiling the Cloak of Deception: Determining When Ignorance or Mistake Should Excuse Criminal Responsibility in Louisiana", (1995-96) 23 Southern University Law Review 213-255;
 

O'REGAN, Robin S, Essays on the Australian Criminal Codes, Sydney: The Law Book, 1979, xix, 152 p., see Essay III, "Unreasonable Mistake of Fact", at pp. 40-51, ISBN: 0455199558;

_____________ "Sorcery and Homicide in Papua New Guinea" (1974) 48 Australian Law Journal 76-82;

PAIZES, Andrew, "Mistake as to the Causal Sequence and Mistake as to the Causal Act Exploring the Relation between Mens Rea and the Causal Element of the Actus Reus", (1993) 110 South African Law Journal  493-529;

PERKINS, Rollins M., "Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law",  (1939-40) 88 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 35-70;
 

POLAND, Penal Code; available at http://www.era.int/domains/corpus-juris/public_pdf/polish_penal_code1.pdf  (accessed on 24 September 2007);

"Article 28. § 1. Whoever commits an act while being in error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of an prohibited act, shall not intentionally commit an offence.

§ 2. Whoever commits an offence in the justified but mistaken conviction that a circumstance has occurred, which constitutes a feature of a prohibited act carrying a less severe penalty, shall be subject to criminal liability under the provision regarding the circumstance warranting this lesser liability.

Article 29. Whoever commits a prohibited act in the justified but mistaken conviction that a circumstance has occurred which excludes unlawfulness or guilt, shall not commit an offence; if the mistake of the perpetrator is not justifiable, the court may apply extraordinary mitigation of the penalty."

POTUGAL, Penal Code -- General Part in English, available at http://www.verbojuridico.net/download/portuguesepenalcode.pdf  (accessed on 30 September 2007);

PRADEL, Jean, "Présentation générale du projet de Code pénal européen sur les délits d'affaires (euros-délits), [2003] Revue pénitentiaire et de droit pénal 277-287; l'article est suivit du texte du Code aux pp. 289-308;

PRADEL, Jean, Droit pénal comparé, Paris: Dalloz, 1995, viii, 733 p., ISBN: 2247019315;  il y a maintenant une 2^e éditon:  Paris: Dalloz, 1995, x, 803 p., ISBN: 2247041108, copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada;

PRICE, Terry L., "Faultless Mistake of Fact: Justification or Excuse?", (Summer/Fall 1993) 12(2) Criminal Justice Ethics 14-28;

____________"Mistakes of Fact and Agent Voluntariness: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Conformity to Will", (January 2003) 80(2) Modern Schoolman: A Quarterly Journal of Philosophy 99-113;

RADULESCO, Jean, De l'influence de l'erreur sur la responsabilité pénale, Paris : éditions de la ″Vie universitaire″, 1923, 173 p.;  thèse, Université de Paris, 1923; titre noté dans mes recherches mais livre non consulté (22 septembre 2007);

RAMIREZ, Juan Bustos and  Manuel Valenzuela Bejas, Le système pénal des pays d'Amérique latine (avec référence au Code pénal type latino-américain),  Traduit de l'espagnol par Jacqueline Bernat De Celis, Paris: Éditions A. Pedone, 1983, 159 p. et voir les pp. 116-122;

"ARTICLE 27.  --  N'est pas punissable celui qui aurait agi dans la conviction qu'il manque au fait quelques-unes des exigences nécessaires à l'existence du délit selon sa description légale.

    Cependant, si l'erreur provenait d'une faute, le fait ne sera puni que lorsque la loi aura prévu sa réalisation 'fautive'.  Les mêmes règles s'appliuqueront à celui qui supposerait de façon erronée l'existence de circonstances justificatives du fait réalisé.

ARTICLE 28. -- N'est pas coupable celui qui par une erreur invincible agirait avec la conviction que le fait réalisé n'est pas punissable.

    Si l'erreur n'était pas incible, le fait sera réprimé d'une peine non inférieure à la moitié du minimum ni supérieure à la moitié du maximum de celle qui aura été prévue pour le délit correspondant.

ARTICLE 29.  -- Si, par suite d'une erreur de l'agent, le fait réalisé était différent de celui qu'il s'était proposé, il lui sera imposé la peine correspondante au fait le moins grave." (p. 118)

Recent Cases, "Criminal Law -- Acts in Defense of Others -- Mistake of Fact", (1923-24) 72 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 325-326;

REICH, J.F., " 'No Provincial or Tansient Notion': The Need for a Mistake of Age Defense in Child Rape Prosecutions", (2005) 57(2) Vanderbilt Law Review 693-740;

REVILLE, N.J., "Self-Defence: Courting Sober but Unreasonable Mistakes of Fact", (1988) 52 Journal of Criminal Law 84-95;

ROBINSON, Paul H., 1948-, Criminal Law Defences, vol. 1 of 2, St. Paul (Minnesota): West, 1984,  ISBN: 0314815139 (set);

ROBINSON, Paul H., 1948-, and John M., Darley, Justice, Liability, and  Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law, Boulder (Colorado, USA): Westview Press, 1995, xvii, 299 p., ISBN: 0813324505, (Series: New directions in social psychology); see Chapter 4, "Doctrines of Culpability: When Is One's Violation of a Legal Rule Blameworthy?", pp. 83-125, and, in particular, "Study 8: Offense Culpability Requirements and Mistake/Accident Defenses" at pp. 84-96 and the "Chapter Summary" at p. 123-125;

ROMANIA,  Penal Code, available at http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/18/e2/c1cc95d23be999896581124f9dd8.htm (accessed on 24 September 2007);

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court / Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale
 

___________"Draft Report of the Intersessional Meeting from 19 to 30 January 1998 in Zutphen, the Netherlands" in M. Cherfif Bassiouni, 1937-, compiled by, The Statute of the International Criminal Court : a documentary history, Ardsley, N.Y. : Transnational Publishers, c1998, xxii, 793 pp., at pp. 221-311, (document number: A/AC.249/1998/L.13, 1998), ISBN:1571050957; copy at the Library of Parliament, KZ6310 S72 (library Br.B.); available at http://web.archive.org/web/20040720010500/http://www.npwj.net/cdrom/zut/zut.pdf and http://www.npwj.org/1998/05/31/1998_05_31_icc_compilation_un_documents_and_draft_icc_statute_diplomatic_conference  (accessed on 24 September 2007);
 

___________"Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, vol. 1, (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March-April and August 1996)", in M. Cherfif Bassiouni, 1937-, compiled by, The Statute of the International Criminal Court : a documentary history, Ardsley, N.Y. : Transnational Publishers, c1998, xxii, 793 pp., at pp. 385-439, (document number: G.A., 51 st Sess., Supp. No. 22, A/51/22, 1996), ISBN:1571050957; copy at the Library of Parliament, KZ6310 S72 (library Br.B.);  available at   http://web.archive.org/web/20040719155140/http://www.npwj.net/cdrom/vol1/vol_1.pdf  and http://www.npwj.org/1998/05/31/1998_05_31_icc_compilation_un_documents_and_draft_icc_statute_diplomatic_conference  (accessed on 24 September 2007);
 

___________"Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, vol. 2, (Compilation of Proposals)", in M. Cherfif Bassiouni, 1937-, compiled by, The Statute of the International Criminal Court : a documentary history, Ardsley, N.Y. : Transnational Publishers, c1998, xxii, 793 pp., at pp. 441-616 (document number: G.A., 51 st Sess., Supp. No. 22, A/51/22, 1996), ISBN:1571050957; copy at the Library of Parliament, KZ6310 S72 (library Br.B.);  available at http://web.archive.org/web/20030828030555/http://www.npwj.net/cdrom/vol2/vol2_a.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2002) and http://www.npwj.org/1998/05/31/1998_05_31_icc_compilation_un_documents_and_draft_icc_statute_diplomatic_conference  (accessed on 24 September 2007);
 

ROUQUETTE, Théophile, Des excuses légales et des faits justificatifs en matière criminelle, Toulouse: Bonnal et Gibrac, 1866; disponible à http://books.google.com/books?vid=HARVARD32044103179586&printsec=titlepage#PPP5,M1 et  à http://books.google.com/books?id=D1kOAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 1 et (vérifiés le 30 mai 2008);

SALAND, Per, "International Criminal Law Principles" in Roy S. Lee, ed., The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results, The Hague/London/Boston: KLuwer Law International, 1999, xxxv, 657 p., at pp. 189-216, ISBN: 904111212X (hardcover) and 904111243X (pbk.); see "XIII. Article 32, Mistake of  fact or mistake of law" at p. 210;

SAMUELS, "Drafting the Criminal Code", (1992) 13 Statute Law Review 229-239;

SATZGER, Helmut, "German Criminal Law and the Rome Statute -- A Critical Analysis of the New German Code of Crimes against International Law", (2002) 2  International Criminal Law Review 261-282, and see discussion on excessive self-defence and mistake as to justified self-defence, at pp. 270-271;
 

SCALIOTTI, Massimo, Defences before the International Criminal Court: Substantive grounds for excluding criminal responsibility – Part 2", (2002) 2(1) International Criminal Law Review 1-46, on "mistake of fact and mistake of law, see pp. 1-16;
 

SEIDMAN, Robert B., "Mens Rea and the Reasonable African: The Pre-Scientific World-View and Mistake of Fact", (1966) 15(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1135-1164;
 

SIMESTER, A.P., "Mistakes in Defence", (1992) 12 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 295-310;

SIMONS, Kenneth W., "Mistake and Impossibility, Law and Fact, and Culpability: A Speculative Essay", (1990-91) 81 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  447-517;

SLIEDREGT, Elies van, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2003, xxiv, 437 p., see "Article 32 ICC Statute: Mistake", at pp. 301-316, ISBN: 9067041661; copy at Ottawa University, FTX General, K5064 .S53 2003;
 

___________"Defences in International Criminal Law", 44 p., see "ARTICLE 32 OF THE ICC STATUTE: MISTAKE", at pp. 27-32, available at  http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Sliedregt.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2004); important contribution; "Paper to be presented at the conference Convergence of Criminal Justice Systems: Building Bridges Bridging the Gap, The International Society For the Reform of Criminal Law.  17th International Conference, 25 August 2003 -- not for quotation."; available at "This paper is based on the PhD research recently published at T.M.C. Asser Press: E. van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, The Hague, 2003"; research note: this book has been ordered by Ottawa University, Law Faculty, on 20 April 2004 (11 August 2004);

SLOVENIA, Republic of,  Penal Code, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/18/34287694.pdf  (accessed on 14 April 2006); as of 28 September 2004, Unofficial translation, Source: the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (OECD);

TRIFFTERER, Otto, "Article 32: Mistake of fact or mistake of law" in Otto Triffterer, ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999, xxviii, 1295 p. at pp. 555-571, ISBN: 378906173; copy at the Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, call number: legal KZ 6310 .C734 1999;
 

U.K., Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict / UK Ministry of Defence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, lv, 611 p., and see "Mistake of Fact", at p. 442, ISBN: 0199244545; copy at the University of Ottawa, FTX General, FTX, KZ 6385 .M285, reserve;

VERHAEGEN, Jacques, "Aberratio ictus ou le problème pénal du coup dévié", (1974-75) Revue juridique Zaire, numéro jubilaire 187-194; titre noté dans ma recherche mais article non consulté; aucune bibliothèque n'a ce numéro dans la région d'Ottawa;

___________ "L'erreur fautive de fait exclusive du dol" dans Liber amicorum José Vanderveeren, Bruxelles: Bruylant, 1997, 214 p., à la p. 203, ISBN: 2802710133;
 

___________"L'erreur non invincible de fait et ses effets en droit pénal belge", (1989) Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie 17-27;

VILLEY, Edmond, "De l'intention, de l'ignorance, de l'erreur et de la bonne foi en matière pénale", (1876-1877) La France judiciaire - Partie I aux pp. 313-324, voir "L'ignorance du faitt" aux p. 321-324; copie à la bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, Ottawa; 

 
WEINREB, Lloyd L., "Comment on Basis of Criminal Laibility; Culpability; Causation: Chapter 3; Section 610"  in Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws,  vol.1, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970, xxv, 742 p., at pp. 105-151, see "Section 304. Ignorance or Mistake Negating Culpability" at pp. 136-141;----------------------------

WEISS, Deborah M., "Scope, Mistake, and Impossibility: The Philosophy of Language and Problems of Mens Rea", (1983) 83 Columbia Law Review 1029-1064;

WELLS, Celia, "Swatting the Subjectivist Bug", [1982] Criminal Law Review 209-220;
 

WERLE, Gerhard, in cooperation with Florian Jessberger, Wulf Burchards, Volker Nerlich and Belinda Cooper, Principles of International Criminal Law, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, c2005, xii, 485 p., and see "Mistake of Fact",  pp. 150-151, ISBN: 9067041963 and 9067042021 (pbk.); copy at the University of Ottawa, FTX General, K5000 .W47 2005;

WHITTIER, Clarke Butler, "Mistake in the Law of Torts", (1902) 15 Harvard Law Review 335-352;
 

WILLIAMS, Glanville L., "Homicide and the Supernatural", (1949) 65 Law Quarterly Review 491-503;
 

WOODRUFF, Owen E., "Mistake of Fact as a Defence", (1958-59)  63 Dickinson Law Review 319-333;