# data[].attributes.body
In Penal Code Section 503, Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

# data[].attributes.body
A threat is any communication that indicates an intention to cause harm. It can be communicated directly or indirectly through words (written or spoken), behaviour, or a combination of both.

# data[].attributes.body
In this situation, the threat was made with a condition and the offender was able to attain his purpose. For example, A threatened B that he would not kill B unless he paid him RM500,000. B offered A RM500,000 out of fear of being murdered.

# data[].attributes.body
If you are accused of threatening to kill or hurt another person, you could face criminal charges. The threat must be transmitted in some way, but it does not have to be verbal, it might be through email, text message, or even body language. In some ways, it is comparable to the crime of assault, but there are several major differences. An assault, for example, occurs when one person attempts to injure another person or uses a threat of force in conjunction with a threatening action. In contrast to a criminal threat, words alone do not constitute an assault charge. Thus, assault is a specific type of criminal threat, one that is more likely to result in serious penalties.

# data[].attributes.body
The following are two of the main elements of a criminal threat:

1. Intent: A criminal threat must be made with the intent to cause another person to fear injury or death. The recipient of the threat does not have to be terrified, only the intent of the person making the threat is important. In a criminal case, this intent is usually deciphered by analyzing the circumstances of the alleged threat.

2. Specificity: A threat cannot be considered criminal if it is either unreasonable or vague. Instead, it must be a specific, credible threat that makes the person hearing it feel as if he or she is in danger. Someone who threatens to detonate a nuclear weapon, for example, is not making a credible threat.

# data[].attributes.body
- Ruzic was a 21 year old women from Belgrade, Yugoslavia. A guy on the street approached her as she was walking her dog and threatened to kill her mother if she did not cooperate.

- She was given a fake Austrian passport and three packages of heroin were strapped to her body. She was instructed to fly to Toronto and deliver the package to a restaurant.

- Ruzic was arrested upon arrival and charged with having a fake passport and trafficking drugs.

-She was not allowed to employ the duress defence since the threat was not immediate.

# data[].attributes.body
Threats, violence, constraints, or other actions used to force someone to do something they do not want to do.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms

= Everyone has the right to life, liberty and Security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice

2. Section 17 of the Criminal Code

= A person who commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed is excused for committing the offence if the person believes that the threats will be carried out.

# data[].attributes.body
- Ruzic argued that the charges levelled against her violated Section 7 of the Charter because she was threatened and worried about her mother's life.

- As a result of this violation, the court ruled that Section 17 of the criminal code is unconstitutional in part. However, they do not specify which sections are unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
- On April 20 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

- The judgement was unanimous, and it stated that Section 17 of the Criminal Code violated Section 7 of the Charter because its requirements were too restrictive.

- She was acquitted of all charges after successfully challenging the constitutionality of Section 17 of the Criminal Code and raising the common law defence of duress at trial.