McSorley - Inquiry Unit - Lecture Notes, Study notes of Law

These are the lecture notes of Inquiry Unit. Key important points are: Mcsorley, Hard Hitting Hockey, Dangerous Violence, National Hockey League, Boston Bruins and Vancouver, Series of Altercations, Painful Body Blow, Dusted Off, Penalty for Goaltender Interference, Medical Evidence

Typology: Study notes

2012/2013

Uploaded on 01/19/2013

gauri
gauri 🇮🇳

4.5

(8)

104 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
R. v. McSorley
Introduction
When does aggressive, hard-hitting hockey become criminal? When does rough
play become dangerous violence? The National Hockey League game that gave rise to this case
witnessed numerous fistfights and plenty of very rough play. But when one player, a known
"enforcer," knocked another known "enforcer" to the ice, causing a concussion and a seizure,
high-sticking became assault with a weapon.
Facts
During an NHL hockey game on February 21, 2000, between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver
Canucks, Marty McSorley of the Bruins and Donald Brashear of the Canucks both known as
"enforcers" -were involved in a series of altercations and fights. Early in the first period they
fought after McSorley crosschecked Brashear from behind. Brashear appeared to get much
the better of McSorley in the fistfight, which ended when Brashear delivered a painful body
blow to McSorley and wrenched him to the ice.
As
Brashear skated past the Bruins's bench to
the penalty box he "dusted off" his hands to signal to the Boston players that he had made
short work of their teammate. These antics clearly antagonized the Boston bench.
Ten minutes later McSorley again crosschecked Brashear from behind, knocking him to the
ice. McSorley swatted Brashear (now without a helmet) several times in the head as he was
getting back to his feet. Rather than fight, Brashear skated off: When McSorley said, "Come
on Don, you've got to fight me again," Brashear replied, "No Marty, I'm not going to fight you.
We're beating you four to nothing." As a result of this incident, McSorley was given back-to-
back minor penalties for crosschecking and roughing, and a ten-minute major for inciting.
Although Brashear later received a penalty for goaltender interference for falling on the
Bruins's goalie, the game settled down until the middle of the third period when Brashear was
slashed by a Canucks player, who was penalized for the infraction. Brashear returned to the
bench where he sat performing a "Hulk Hogan" pose for the benefit of the Boston players,
who were again irate at his mocking behaviour.
In the last minute of the game both Brashear and McSorley were on the ice. Brashear
took two or three power strides down the ice toward his own end, then glided toward his own
blue line. McSorley, on a parallel track, skated hard and caught up to Brashear at the blue line.
As
he approached Brashear, McSorley swung his stick like a baseball bat, striking the side of
Brashear's head with the blade and several inches of the shaft of his stick. Brashear's legs
immediately splayed and he lost his balance and fell back. His helmet having been dislodged,
his head struck the ice. Brashear's tensed neck muscles saved his head from full impact with
the ice. Medical evidence indicated that the slash had contributed to the grade-three
concussion Brashear suffered and the
grand mal
seizure he experienced before regaining
consciousness.
As
a result, Brashear was unable to do any physical activity for the next month.
McSorley was charged with assault with a weapon. Sections 265 and 267 of the
Criminal
Code
provide:
Assault
Docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download McSorley - Inquiry Unit - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

R. v. McSorley

Introduction When does aggressive, hard-hitting hockey become criminal? When does rough play become dangerous violence? The National Hockey League game that gave rise to this case witnessed numerous fistfights and plenty of very rough play. But when one player, a known "enforcer," knocked another known "enforcer" to the ice, causing a concussion and a seizure, high-sticking became assault with a weapon.

Facts During an NHL hockey game on February 21, 2000, between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks, Marty McSorley of the Bruins and Donald Brashear of the Canucks both known as "enforcers" -were involved in a series of altercations and fights. Early in the first period they fought after McSorley crosschecked Brashear from behind. Brashear appeared to get much the better of McSorley in the fistfight, which ended when Brashear delivered a painful body

blow to McSorley and wrenched him to the ice.As Brashear skated past the Bruins's bench to

the penalty box he "dusted off" his hands to signal to the Boston players that he had made short work of their teammate. These antics clearly antagonized the Boston bench. Ten minutes later McSorley again crosschecked Brashear from behind, knocking him to the ice. McSorley swatted Brashear (now without a helmet) several times in the head as he was getting back to his feet. Rather than fight, Brashear skated off: When McSorley said, "Come on Don, you've got to fight me again," Brashear replied, "No Marty, I'm not going to fight you. We're beating you four to nothing." As a result of this incident, McSorley was given back-to- back minor penalties for crosschecking and roughing, and a ten-minute major for inciting. Although Brashear later received a penalty for goaltender interference for falling on the Bruins's goalie, the game settled down until the middle of the third period when Brashear was slashed by a Canucks player, who was penalized for the infraction. Brashear returned to the bench where he sat performing a "Hulk Hogan" pose for the benefit of the Boston players, who were again irate at his mocking behaviour. In the last minute of the game both Brashear and McSorley were on the ice. Brashear took two or three power strides down the ice toward his own end, then glided toward his own blue line. McSorley, on a parallel track, skated hard and caught up to Brashear at the blue line.

As he approached Brashear, McSorley swung his stick like a baseball bat, striking the side of

Brashear's head with the blade and several inches of the shaft of his stick. Brashear's legs immediately splayed and he lost his balance and fell back. His helmet having been dislodged, his head struck the ice. Brashear's tensed neck muscles saved his head from full impact with the ice. Medical evidence indicated that the slash had contributed to the grade-three

concussion Brashear suffered and thegrand mal seizure he experienced before regaining

consciousness.As a result, Brashear was unable to do any physical activity for the next month.

McSorley was charged with assault with a weapon. Sections 265 and 267 of theCriminal

Code provide:

Assault

  1. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly' or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose, or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm includes:

  1. Every one who, in committing an assault, (a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or (b) causes bodily harm to the complainant, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Held Guilty as charged.

Judicial Reasoning McSorley either deliberately struck Brashear on the head without Brashear's consent or he was reckless, aiming at Brashear's shoulder and ignoring the risk of hitting his head. If the blow to the head was intentional, it was an assault. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McSorley had a culpable state of mind: he either intended to strike Brashear's head or was reckless as to the risk of hitting his head. Consent is a defence to assault. Brashear testified that he had not consented to such a blow and neither the written rules of hockey nor its unwritten code would tolerate such a blow as part of the game. The defence argued that McSorley intended to strike Brashear on the shoulder to get his attention and egg him into another fight. There was considerable evidence that slashes to var- ious parts of the body were considered a common way of starting a fight, and therefore a slash intended for the shoulder would be within the common practices and norms of the game. But there is still the issue of when in law the risks involved in such actions are too great to be consented to by hockey players. In other words, when is consent overridden by public policy? The test for determining this issue requires the court to consider the conditions under which the particular game was played, the nature and extent of the force applied, the degree of risk of injury, and the probability of serious harm. In this case, the question is whether the slash to the shoulder, assuming that McSorley intended to strike the shoulder, was worth the risk, given all of the circumstances, including the previous incidents and the time of the game. McSorley was sent onto the ice by his coach to regain some pride for Boston by challenging

(b) Brashear replied, "No Marty, I'm not going to fight you. We are beating you four to nothing. " (c) Brashear performed a "Hulk Hogan" pose for the benefit of the Boston players. (d) Medical evidence indicated that Brashear suffered a grade-three concussion as a result of the slash. (e) McSorley was ordered and motivated by coach Laperriere to regain some of Boston's pride by challenging Brashear again. (f) There were only 20 seconds left in the game; little time to instigate a fight. (g) When he struck Brashear near the head McSorley was reacting instantaneously and impulsively. (h) Hockey sticks are not designed as weapons but are commonly used aggressively during games to slash and crosscheck.

  1. In 1969, an NHL exhibition game between the Boston Bruins and St. Louis Blues was held in Canada. Ted Green, a Boston player with the reputation of being an "enforcer," hit Blues player Wayne Maki in the face with his glove, prompting the referee to call a delayed penalty. Maki, not known as a physical player, retaliated by spearing Green in the groin with his stick. Green chopped at Maki's neck or shoulders with his stick. In return, Maki chopped at Green's shoulder but his stick glanced off Green's stick into the side of Green's head. Green suffered serious skull injuries requiring the surgical insertion of a metal plate in his head. He was out for the entire season. At the time of the incident, players did not wear helmets. Criminal charges were filed against both players. ...(Source: "Violence in Sport-It's Your Responsibility Too." Centre for Sport and Law. 12 Feb. 2004 http://www.sportlaw.ca/articles/ coach/ coach36.html)
  2. Research the March 2004 incident in which Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks punched Steve Moore of the Colorado Avalanche, inflicting severe head and neck injuries. Bertuzzi was charged with assault and suspended by the National Hockey League for the rest

of the season. Apply the law used inR. v. McSorley.

4.When is enough, enough? When does aggressive play become criminal law?

  1. In your opinion why do we (society), allow for this overly aggressive /violent behaviour to occur!!!!! Explain.
  2. Hockey is a violent game where aggressive play is encouraged and well supported by the paying customer. Do hockey players understand the culture of the game and therefore consent to the physical action and consequences of the game?
  3. Do you agree with the final sentence and if you do, what should be the discipline and or punishment handed out? If you do not agree explain what you would like to see.
  1. Now as a rule maker or an official of “a game,” comment on any of the double standards that you see in games that are played and what we have of the expectations of the citizen in society.
  2. Do you think that the ordinary person on the street is affected by the violence displayed in hockey? Are you worried about copycat crimes?