Case Study: R. v. Helsdon - Mens Rea Analysis in Criminal Law

This case study examines the criminal law case of R. v. Helsdon, focusing on the application of mens rea principles. The assignment analyzes the arguments presented by the Crown and Defense regarding objective and subjective mens rea in relation to a publication ban breach. It explores whether the judge applied a subjective or objective test, the reasoning behind the decision, and evaluates the appropriateness of the chosen test. The analysis includes relevant case law and discusses the potential effects of the ruling on the justice system. The case involves a newspaper reporter charged with breaching a publication ban, highlighting the complexities of intent and knowledge in criminal law. The study delves into the trial judge's findings and the implications for journalists and media outlets. The conclusion underscores the court's stance on responsibility for the disclosure of banned information.

Criminal Law

Table of Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
Main Context.........................................................................................................................................2
Whether Crown supporting the objective or subjective test.............................................................2
Whether the judge is applying the subjective or subjective test.......................................................3
Reasons for applying the subjective/objective test...........................................................................3
Analysis of the test............................................................................................................................4
Case law.............................................................................................................................................4
Some of the effects this ruling will have on the justice system.........................................................4
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................5
References.............................................................................................................................................6
1

Introduction
In the case, "R. v. Helsdon, 2007 ONCA 54", a newspaper reporter was being charged with
helping a publisher to breach publication ban by showing a story that included the name of a
plaintiff in the sexual assault case. Thus, the newspaper and the accused reporter were
charged for breaching the publication ban as per 486 (5) of the Criminal Code. The
publication ban was not known to the newspaper reporter and any other individuals at the
newspaper organization. The trial judge did not accept the case but the accused asked Crown
to provide the intended accused of publishing the offending article is a criminal offense as it
was not essential to depict that the accused had all information of the ban. The case accepted
on the basis that the accused was not being the perpetrator or principal of the offense to
publish the offending article (R. v. Helsdon, 2007).
Main Context
Whether Crown supporting the objective or subjective test
Crown supported subjective mens rea. It was added by the crown that the party should have
been aware of the publication ban and doing something intentionally for breaching the ban
can cost him under the criminal code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 21(1), 486(5). Crown was
required to prove that the offending article was published intentionally and the accused was
aware of the ban. It could also be enough if the crown would have proved that the accused
was predicting ban before publishing the article (R. v. Aster, 1980).
The defender said that neither the newspaper nor reporter was aware of the ban. A reporter
cannot be convicted as he might have been careless, negligent or forgotten to check whether
there was any ban in the particular place. There was no evidence that can prove that the
publisher was in such a position where he could make a decision of what should be published
or what shall not.
2

Whether the judge is applying the subjective or subjective test
The judge denied subjective mens rea and asked the crown to prove that the offending article
was published intentionally and the accused was aware of the ban. The accused was not
founded with a subjective mens rea element and the judge also did not find him guilty under
s. 21(1)(b). But the judge found liable both Annex and the appellant on the basis of objective-
based mens rea because of the existing ban for publication. The involvement of subjective
mens rea was not being found for either of them like intent, wilful, knowledge, purpose,
blindness or even careless to the ban (R. v. CHBC Television, 1999). It was made clear by the
judge that the mens rea for non-Criminal code contempt of court will only be considered if it
will be related to any publication released by media and that will only require of an objective
test.
Reasons for applying the subjective/objective test
The trial judge did not accept the submission of the accused because the mens rea for
contempt publication under the code is based on subjectivity. The subjectivity was applied to
determine the elements such as intent, purpose, willful blindness, knowledge and
recklessness. Thus, the subjective mens rea was required for the accused party of breaching
the publication ban. The word "purpose" states that an individual should advert subjectively
to a particular objective and she or he should have the knowledge about the facts that consists
of the objective. The concept of the objective is inconsistent completely with the requirement
expressed in section 21 (1) (b). The objective mens rea was needed for establishing an
intention to conduct unlawful conduct (R. v. Daly, 2003). Under section 486 (5), the mens rea
for the offense consists of an objective test and the trial judge stated that the mens rea for the
court’s non-criminal code relates to the publication by the media outlet and needed objective
test.
3

Analysis of the test
The test was inappropriate as the reporter was not convicted. Annex and Helsdon had been
fined with $3000 and $5000. The reporter was not found guilty under s. 21 because the story
was verified and published by the publisher; the reporter was not the person who took the
decision to publish the story (R. v. Greenshields, 2014). The reporter should also be convicted
in a similar way like his employer. There are multiple cases available where electronic and
print journalists have been convicted for breaching a ban even though they had no intention
to do so.
Case law
The news reporter was being charged for violating the publication ban under section 486 (3)
and section 486 (1) for publishing any information that can determine the appellant in the
sexual assault case. Both the Annex Printing and Publishing Inc and Helsdon were being
charged with the offense to violate the ban. The findings of the fact by the trial judge depicted
that the newspaper was being only responsible under the law. There are many cases that
depict both the electronic and print journalists can be alleged responsible even there was no
intention to breach a ban. The cases are R V Daly (2003), R. V CHBC Television (1999), R v
Aster (1980) and Mnitoba v Winnipeg Free Press Co. (1965).
Some of the effects this ruling will have on the justice system
The ruling can assist to develop the justice system in an appropriate manner by imposing
strict rules on the journalists. The ruling provides power and rights to the court for taking
actions against the criminals (R. v. Joe Nedlin, 2005). The ruling states that the journalists
who will violate the publication ban on television or radio or online can be convicted as a
principal to the offense. There will be a fair justice system for the people within the society.
4

Conclusion
The court in the “R v Helsdon” found that broadcaster and publishers ultimately bear the
responsibility if the coverage of news discloses banned evidence or names. The newspaper
organization that employed the reporter was considered to the principal to the offense as per
section 486.
5

References
R. v. Aster (1980). R. v. Aster, 1980 CanLII 2892 (QC CS). [online]
www.canlii.org. Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/1980/1980canlii2892/1980canlii2892.ht
ml?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
R. v. CHBC Television (1999). R. v. CHBC Television, a division of WIC
Television Ltd., 1999 BCCA 72 (CanLII). [online] www.canlii.org. Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1999/1999bcca72/1999bcca72.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
R. v. Daly (2003). R. v. Daly, 2003 BCSC 1143 (CanLII). [online] www.canlii.org.
Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2003/2003bcsc1143/2003bcsc1143.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
R. v. Greenshields (2014). R. v. Greenshields, 2014 ONCJ 35 (CanLII). [online]
www.canlii.org. Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2014/2014oncj35/2014oncj35.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=6
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
R. v. Helsdon (2007). R. v. Helsdon, 2007 ONCA 54 (CanLII). [online]
www.canlii.org. Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca54/2007onca54.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
R. v. Joe Nedlin (2005). R. v. Joe Nedlin, 2005 NWTTC 11 (CanLII). [online]
www.canlii.org. Available at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/nt/nttc/doc/2005/2005nwttc11/2005nwttc11.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIbWVucyByZWEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=4
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
6