Confess and avoid defence

R. v. Armstrong, 2011 ONCA 709 deals with 'reasonable excuse'. In both civil and criminal law a common defence is 'confess and avoid'. Such defences accept the cause is made out but say no liability follows because of some new factor, proof of which must be advanced by the defendant. The Court writes:

[9]              A claim of "reasonable excuse" by a person charged with a flight offence is not a denial of the essential elements of that offence. A "reasonable excuse" refers to something outside the essential elements of an offence. An excuse speaks to whether an accused should be held accountable for what otherwise would be a crime: R. v. Taraschuk, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 385, at p. 388; and R. v. Moser (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), per Doherty J.A., concurring in the result, at pp. 748-749.