Ask anyone. Landmark CASE R. v. Vaillancourt The appellant was armed with a knife and his (1987), 60 C.R. accomplice with a gun. During the robbery, (3d) 298 (S.C.C.) the appellant remained near the front of the hall while the accomplice went to the back.

Ask anyone. Landmark CASE R. v. Vaillancourt The appellant was armed with a knife and his (1987), 60 C.R. accomplice with a gun. During the robbery, (3d) 298 (S.C.C.) the appellant remained near the front of the hall while the accomplice went to the back. The accomplice got into an altercation and shot and killed one of the pool hall’s clients Facts: The appellant was convicted of The accomplice managed to escape and has murder under s. 230 of the Criminal Code, never been found. The appellant was arrested which states: at the scene. Culpable homicide is murder where a In the course of his testimony, the appellant person causes the death of a human being said that he and his accomplice had agreed to while committing or attempting to commit this robbery armed only with knives. commit… (343) robbery, whether or not On the night of the robbery, however, the the person means to cause death to any accomplice arrived with a gun. The appellant human being and whether or not he knows said that he insisted that the gun be unloaded that death is likely to be caused to any The accomplice removed three bullets from human being, if (d) he uses a weapon or the gun and gave them to the appellant. The has it upon his person (i) during or at the appellant placed the bullets in his glove. time he commits or attempts to commit the where they were later found by police. The offence, or (ii) during or at the time of his appellant testified that, at the time of the flight after committing or attempting to robbery, he was certain that the gun was commit the offence, and the death ensues unloaded. as a consequence. The appellant and an accomplice Issue: Does s. 230 of the Criminal Code committed an armed robbery in a pool hall violate ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Canadian Charter

facts of this case

issues of this case?

What is the legal reasoning relevant to this case?

What was the decision?

What were the reasons for the decision?