Expert Evidence in Canada, A Primer: R. v. Mohan. R v Moloney and Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455. R v Mohan. Description. Contains negative treatment of. May 5, 1994. Unformatted text preview: R.v.Mohan Case By: Jayden Vitale R v Mohan 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of experts in trial testimony.Facts Mohan was a pediatrician in North Bay, Ontario. ↑ R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, per Sopinka J ("There is a danger that expert evidence will be misused and will distort the fact-finding process. Page 1 [1976] QB 1, [1975] 2 All ER 193, [1975] 2 WLR 859, 60 Cr App Rep 272, [R v Mohan COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION [1976] QB 1, [1975] 2 All ER 193, [1975] 2 WLR 859, 60 Cr App Rep 272, [1975] RTR 337, 139 JP 523 HEARING-DATES: 14 JANUARY, 4 FEBRUARY 1975 4 FEBRUARY 1975 CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Attempt - Mens rea - Intent - Proof of intent to commit complete offence … R v Mohan, 1994. Full case name. Case to flag. R v Mohan [1976] QB 1. Summary: The accused pediatrician was charged with four counts of sexual assault involving four of his female patients aged 13 to 16. Badar M E, The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law … Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. Mens rea is the element of a crime which alludes to what is known as the “guilty mind”. R v Mohan 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony. R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82. R v Parker [1977] 1 WLR 600. Other Sources . R v Moloney [1985] AC 905. R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9. A good starting point for a review of the state of affairs in Canada is the case of R. v. Mohan. Received negative treatment in. on four female patients during medical examinations conducted in his office. Mens Rea In R V Mohan. While expert evidence tendered by either the Crown or the Defence can be a powerful tool to prove guilt or innocence, there is also an inherent danger that the trier of fact will place an overemphasis on the evidence. Supreme Court of Canada. Call a Lawyer Now for a Brief Phone Consultation: 905-273-3322 or 1-877-273-3322 Supreme Court of Canada. Hearing: November 9, 1993. Page 1 [1976] QB 1, [1975] 2 All ER 193, [1975] 2 WLR 859, 60 Cr App Rep 272, [R v Mohan COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION [1976] QB 1, [1975] 2 All ER 193, [1975] 2 WLR 859, 60 Cr App Rep 272, [1975] RTR 337, 139 JP 523 HEARING-DATES: 14 JANUARY, 4 FEBRUARY 1975 4 FEBRUARY 1975 CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Attempt - Mens rea - Intent - Proof of intent to commit complete offence … Here you can indicate this case has given or received negative treatment in other courts. 4 The facts of this case can be summarized as follows: Dr. Mohan was a practicing pediatrician who was charged with four counts of sexual assault on four of his female patients, 13 to 16 years of age at the time. Judgment: May 5, 1994. The use of expert evidence in criminal cases requires a degree of caution. He was charged with sexual assault of four teenaged patients. R v Yip Chiu-Cheung [1995] 1 AC 111. o He intended to call a psychiatrist who would testify to the effect that the perpetrator of the. • Facts: o The respondent, a practicing pediatrician, was charged with four counts of sexual assault. Chikmaglur Mohan (respondent) (23063) Indexed As: R. v. Mohan. R. v. Mohan; Supreme Court of Canada: Hearing: November 9, 1993 Judgment: May 5, 1994; Full case name: Her Majesty The Queen v. Chikmaglur Mohan: Citations