R. v. Hubley

R. v. Hubley

On the whole of the evidence the judge concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Hubley knowingly assisted in dismembering and disposing of Catherine Miller's remains and thus was an accessory after the fact and guilty of interfering with human remains; the defence of duress was rejected because there was no credible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 NSSC 44
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: George Edward Hubley
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Judgment / Conviction Decision
Outcome
Convictions entered on both counts
Legal Topics
Accessory After the Fact, Interfering With Human Remains, Duress (necessity), Admissions Under S.655, Judicial Authorizations and Interception of Communications
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Defence of Duress Accessory After the Fact Interfering With Human Remains Duress (necessity) Admissions Under S.655 Judicial Authorizations and Interception of Communications

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

George Edward Hubley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Judgment / Conviction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was an accessory after the fact to murder
  2. 2 Whether the accused improperly interfered with human remains
  3. 3 Whether the defence of duress had an air of reality and was available

Ratio Decidendi

On the whole of the evidence the judge concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Hubley knowingly assisted in dismembering and disposing of Catherine Miller's remains and thus was an accessory after the fact and guilty of interfering with human remains; the defence of duress was rejected because there was no credible evidence of threats and objectively there was a safe avenue of escape, so convictions were entered on both counts.

Court Disposition

Convictions entered on both counts

Orders

  • Conviction entered: accessory after the fact to murder (contrary to Criminal Code)
  • Conviction entered: interfering with human remains (contrary to Criminal Code s.182(b))