R. v. Colley

R. v. Colley

Accused was the aggressor who, having driven to challenge the victim's authority and after retreating to pick up a shovel, proceeded toward the victim and struck him; the evidence does not establish self-defence or raise a reasonable doubt, therefore the Crown proved aggravated assault under s.268(1); by operation of Kienapple only a conviction on s.268 is entered despite multiple charges arising from the same incident.

Citation
2007 NSPC 30
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Carlo Lenn Colley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision
Outcome
Guilty of aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) of the Criminal Code; although found guilty of all charged offences, pursuant to Kienapple only a conviction is entered on s.268(1) and not on s.267(a) or s.88.
Legal Topics
Aggravated Assault, Assault With a Weapon, Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose, Self Defence, Defence of Property, Trespass
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Aggravated Assault Assault With a Weapon Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose Self Defence Defence of Property Trespass

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Carlo Lenn Colley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused acted in self-defence
  2. 2 Whether the accused committed aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the accused used or threatened to use a weapon contrary to s.267(a) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

Accused was the aggressor who, having driven to challenge the victim's authority and after retreating to pick up a shovel, proceeded toward the victim and struck him; the evidence does not establish self-defence or raise a reasonable doubt, therefore the Crown proved aggravated assault under s.268(1); by operation of Kienapple only a conviction on s.268 is entered despite multiple charges arising from the same incident.

Court Disposition

Guilty of aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) of the Criminal Code; although found guilty of all charged offences, pursuant to Kienapple only a conviction is entered on s.268(1) and not on s.267(a) or s.88.

Orders

  • Conviction entered for aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) of the Criminal Code
  • No separate convictions entered for s.267(a) and s.88 under the Kienapple principle