Common law defenses are justifications and defenses people can provide in a court of law. Section 8 of the Criminal Code codifies their long-standing application in criminal law. To all transgressions covered by parliamentary acts, Section 8 applies. For instance, there are more restrictions on the defense of necessity than self-defense. The application of the common law defense to immigration law has nevertheless drawn criticism from the Minister of Immigration.
A common law defense of necessity typically occurs when coercion from other people or threats prompts a person to breach the law. The behavior must be reasonable and proportional to the hazard for this defense to be effective. The individual who raises the reason will not be found guilty of the offense if the prosecution can show that it does not apply. The security of necessity has occasionally been a component of the law since the dawn of humanity.
The infancy defense is another common law defense. Based on British common law, this defense aims to refute a defendant's criminal responsibility based on their young age. As a result, it is assumed that children under seven cannot commit crimes. Due to this, minors between the ages of seven and fourteen have generally been exempt from prosecution under adult criminal law. However, in the US, kids in this age range are still capable of facing charges through the juvenile court system.
Common law defenses are self-defense, necessity, duress, and particular order. Self-defense, for instance, can be proven in cases of non-culpable behavior like theft undertaken for survival. In contrast, if a property is damaged, a defense of specific order might be appropriate. Additionally, the security of necessity can be used if the defendant acted without malice in mind.
On the other hand, the insanity defense is not frequently employed. Despite being an affirmative defense, it needs to be supported by evidence of a significant mental defect or illness. This implies that the defendant could not discriminate between good and evil at the time of the offense. In other words, he was driven to perform the act by an overwhelming urge.
The defendant can go deeper into the Crown's evidence by providing a thorough answer or rebuttal. This defense calls for the introduction of truthful evidence and submissions to the fact-finder. Complete response or protection enables the accused to assert their innocence, which may lead to acquittal.
In an immigration proceeding, several common law defenses may be asserted. The relevant facts will determine whether or not these defenses are acceptable. For example, the common law lacks immunity regulations, although the criminal code does. Even in cases involving immigrants, common law defenses are rarely invoked. That is because they are civil processes, and the criminal system is heavily involved.
In situations where the accused was coerced into committing a crime, the duress defense may also be employed. When the offender was coerced into committing the offense or was under threat of harming the victim or their property, this defense is applicable. It has been used to excuse violent crimes in several Hollywood productions.