His lordship therefore turned to apply the two
elements of the offence established by the 19th century cases to this case.
Not exact matches
Metuh had on Thursday, February 25, 2016 through his counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, filed a «no - case» submission on the grounds that, the prosecution did not
establish the essential
elements of the
offences charged, a situation he said rendered the case against him manifestly unreliable.
Like other Canadian criminal law competition
offences, however, like conspiracy under section 45 and the criminal misleading advertising
offences, all
of the
elements need to be
established on a criminal burden
of proof — i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two person rule in respect
of establishing the public
element of the
offence of outraging public decency contrary to the common law can be satisfied if there were two or more people present who were capable
of seeing the nature
of the act, even if they did not actually see it.
The Crown will often charge alternative counts where it is unclear exactly what it will be able to prove or whether all the
elements of a particular
offence can be
established.
The Crown must
establish the
elements of the subject
offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do this, the accused will succeed in the proceeding, without doing anything.
Those cases
established that if the
offence of outraging public decency was to be proved, it was necessary to prove two
elements: first, that the act was
of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; that
element constituted the nature
of the act which had to be proved before the
offence could be
established.