As I understand what you've written, you're saying that since Canadian
criminal law analysis requires both the proscribed act and the requisite mental state for a Criminal Code conviction, we, in terms of that analysis, have to understand that the effect of the sections involved is to deem both the act and the mental state to have been Merton's own act, own intent, for the purpose of the requirements of the CC sections i
criminal law analysis requires both the proscribed act and the
requisite mental state for a
Criminal Code conviction, we, in terms of that analysis, have to understand that the effect of the sections involved is to deem both the act and the mental state to have been Merton's own act, own intent, for the purpose of the requirements of the CC sections i
Criminal Code conviction, we, in terms of that analysis, have to understand that the effect of the sections involved is to deem both the act and the mental state to have been Merton's own act, own
intent, for the purpose of the requirements of the CC sections involved.
However, in my experience having represented hundreds of people accused of shoplifting, a significant sub-set are often factually innocent having honestly forgotten to pay for a single item in a long list of things they shopped for that day thus never forming the
requisite intent to be found guilty of a
criminal offence.