



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
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
1 / 5
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!




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