Archive for Assault With a Weapon

R v B (2015)

Three assailants burst through the back door of M’s apartment and assaulted him using pepper spray and a knife. M sustained a head injury and multiple cuts and bruises. The assailants made off with various pieces of electronics. M told the police that the beating was over a drug debt and they should know one of the assailants as he had been arrested a couple of days previously. He fingered B who was arrested again a week later in an unrelated investigation. B was charged with robbery and assault with a weapon. The police seized a surveillance video on the same night as the break-in from a nearly convenience store showing B wearing a different coloured shirt. The police also did a data base search of police records and found the report of B’s previous arrest just as M said there would be. Then the state’s case went down hill. M picked out two men from a photo lineup saying a photograph of B could be one of his attackers. And about a month later M was accosted on the street by the man he owed money to. He knew the man was not B because he had been denied bail and was in custody at a remand centre. Mr Rice brought a bail review application armed with the new information. The bail justice commented in the ruling that based on the evidence as a whole no reasonable jury could convict. B was granted bail and the prosecutor later withdrew the charges on the trial date.

R v C (2014)

Every person accused of a crime in Canada has a constitutional right to a trial. However, a plea of not guilty and a trial may not be the right move in every case. Where the police have conducted a thorough investigation and the state has a reasonable likelihood of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be appropriate to consider negotiating a guilty plea to reduced charges or making an application to the court for a special disposition. In this case, C was charged with assault with a weapon when he used a belt to discipline his young son for correction purposes. Although the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances under s 43 of the Criminal Code, the use of the belt ran afoul of the leading case law from the Supreme Court of Canada. When C pleaded guilty as charged, Mr Rice brought an application for a discharge under s 730 of the Code. This section allows the courts to grant a discharge when it is not contrary to the public interest. A successful application means that a defendant is not convicted and would not therefore have a criminal record. In this case, the sentencing judge held that the use of the belt was not excessive, there were no serious injuries and a public record of a conviction was not necessary. The dischsrge application was granted.