a judicial decision based on the facts of the case. Your decision should:

assess whether the Defence has provided a valid defence to the accused's actions

assess whether the Crown has proven that the accused is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt

choose a sentence that falls within the maximum/minimum outlined under the Criminal Code

assess whether your sentence adequately addresses each of the four main sentencing objectives: deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution and segregation

Dear Attorney, My name is John I am 16 years old and on Thursday May27th, I was notified that I will be facing charges for assaulting 21-year-old Jacob Stine. Charges state that Mr. Stine was punched in the ribs, face, and liver, which resulted in a broken rib and a fractured jaw. I must admit that I have committed these actions but with reason. The crime took place in an ally way on 36 Blud Ave. On 4:45 pm my mother Hannah and I were walking down the alley where we were stopped by Mr. Stine and held at gunpoint to rob us. He pulled his gun out and told us that if we did not hand over everything in our pockets, he would shoot. To defend my mother and I, disarming him was the only option I had left of living, but I had gotten out of hand and severely hurt him. I have been diagnosed with anxiety since 2018 due to some childhood trauma, and the event that happened triggered a panic attack which resulted in me acting impulsively and fighting back resulting in putting him in the hospital. Prosecutor states that I have broken section 225 of the Canadian criminal code which puts me at risk for facing a minimum of 5 years. I find these charges to be unjust and unfair that I am facing such a harsh sentence for defending myself. I understand that I caused a lot of damage, but my life was at risk and considering my history of mental health problems I feel that it should also be a considered aspect of this case, which seems that it is not. My mother and I were in danger and to protect her and myself I did what I felt that I should do considering my mental and physical state. I do not feel that it is fair that I am facing a punishment this severe for protecting my mother, and I am being looked at as the criminal in this case. Please let me know if you could do anything about this case.Letter from Defence Lawyer to Accused Dear Mr. Sefen, I have received your letter concerning your need for counsel, and I am able to say that I will help you. After reviewing the details of your situation, I can see that you have committed aggravated assault, which falls under section 268 of the Criminal Code. This section highlights that if one wound, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant, they have committed aggravated assault. This is an indictable offence, meaning you may face up to 14 years of imprisonment. Because you broke Mr. Stine's rib, and you fractured his jaw, these specific injuries that you have caused do not fall under section 225, which states that it is when a person causes to a human being a bodily injury that is of itself of a dangerous nature and from which death results. If I am correct based on what you have explained, Mr. Stine is still alive, but is severely injured; broken ribs can cause damage and punctures to the lungs and other critical organs or blood vessels, and a fractured jaw can, depending on how severe, cause bleeding, airway blocking, and more, which can all be life threatening. Now, for the trial, you will face a judge, and your innocence will be ultimately decided by a jury, as it is a serious indictable offence you are being accused of. The main witness that will be called for the crown is Mr. Jacob Stine, if he is physically able to attend court by then, other witnesses may come forward later. For the defence, you will be the key witness, and your mother, Ms. Hannah Sefen, will be another witness, as you were both there to testify that Mr. Stine had provoked you to defend yourselves. Because you and your mother can both testify that Mr. Stine had attempted to rob you both using a weapon, we can use the argument of self defence. In section 34 of the Criminal Code, it states that the accused believes on reasonable grounds thatCase Brief: R v. Stine Case Brief by Crown Attorney Style of cause: R v. Stine (2022). Facts of the case: In the case of R v. Stine, Mr. Stine is charging Mr. Stefen for aggravated assault (under section 268 of the Canadian Criminal Code) which caused him to end up in the hospital, suffering from a broken rib and a fractured jaw. Mr. Stefen does not deny these claims but states that there is missing, and misleading, information being presented. Both parties can agree that at 4:45pm in the alley way of 26 Blud Ave, they were both present along with Mr. Stefen's mother. Mr. Stefen claims that on that evening in the alley way, Mr. Stine approached him and his mother and attempted to rob them both at gunpoint and as a result, he attempted to disarm him. Whilst retaliating against Mr. Stine, Mr. Stefen experienced a panic attack due to triggered anxiety (anxiety which he has been diagnosed with since 2018). Mr. Stefen's claims he was driven by insane automatism due to his anxiety, due to his anxiety he had caused a more severe outcome than that of which he initially intended. In the process of disarming Mr. Stine, Mr. Stefen broke one of his ribs and fractured his jaw. During the trial, Mr. Stefen was presented as a key witness and his mother as a witness as well. They both testified that Mr. Stine had previously threatened them both at gunpoint in attempts to rob them before Mr. Stefen defended himself (which the Crown claims was aggravated assault) and his mother. Issues in this case: Was Mr. Stefen's action against Mr. Stine justified? Did Mr. Stine indeed attempt to rob Mr. Stefen and his mother? Holding: The defense of insane automatism triggered by the plaintiff's anxiety has excused him from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder. Ratio Decidendi: As per section 34 (1) "Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force they use is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself." Canadians can use force to protect their belongings and themselves. The accused had reasonably perceived a threat against the Crown, and acted with a defensive purpose, and his actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The plaintiff used force to prevent an attack against him and his mother but failed to cease using force once the attacker had backed down. In the case of disease of the mind, those suffering are not found criminally responsible. Therefore, Mr. Stefen, due to his anxiety that was intensely triggered during the attempted robbery, is not criminally responsible in the event of Mr. Stine being severely injured and in hospital with a broken rib and a fractured jaw. Those with mental health struggles must be looked at with extra care as they do not always choose to do the crimes they have committed. Failing to take into account the needs of those struggling with their mental health does not solve problems, in fact, this may worsen problems as those struggling are not being rehabilitated or treated. In this case, disease of the mind was prevalent and cannot be ignored. The verdict the jury came to is sufficiently supported by the Charter of Rights and principles of law we live under today, therefore the case of R v. Stine has been rejected