Although, as stated above, the criticism of the trial judge was not misplaced, we agree with the Crown that, taken as a whole, this appellant s conduct did not justify the costs order. His conduct, while in the nature of a mistake or error of judgment, cannot be described as being in the nature of contempt or abuse of process. Accordingly, this appellant s appeal is allowed and the costs order made against him is hereby set aside. He held that the certainty that is required to induce accused persons to waive their rights to a trial can only be achieved in an atmosphere where the Courts do not lightly interfere with a negotiated disposition that falls within or is very close to the appropriate range of penalty for a given offence. The Court further held that a sentencing judge should reject a joint submission only where acceptance would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or otherwise be contrary to the public interest.
Liability based on wilful blindness is subjective.
Actual suspicion, combined with a conscious decision not to make inquiries which could confirm that suspicion is equated in the eyes of the criminal law with actual knowledge. Both are subjective and both are sufficiently blameworthy to justify the imposition of criminal liability. Overview White and Cote were convicted of first degree murder in an execution style killing. The Court reviewed the principles set out in R. v. Arcangioli and arguably gave that earlier decision a restrictive interpretation. The victim, Chiu, was shot to death.