R. v. Googoo

R. v. Googoo

On the evidence the accused intentionally assaulted Miranda and Tania; the judge accepted crown witnesses and rejected the accused's account, found intoxication irrelevant to general intent, held Count 2 was subsumed in Count 1 as a single transaction and that the facts did not meet the threshold for aggravated assault but did establish assault causing bodily harm for Count 1; guilty verdict on Count 3 and acquittal on Count 2.

Citation
2015 NSSC 22
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ekkian Misel Googoo
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Count 1: Not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of the included offence of assault causing bodily harm; Count 2: Not guilty (subsumed in Count 1); Count 3: Guilty as charged (assault under s.266).
Legal Topics
Aggravated Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault (s.266), Credibility Assessment, Intoxication and General Intent, Included Offence Rule, Single Transaction Rule
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Aggravated Assault Assault Causing Bodily Harm Assault (s.266) Credibility Assessment Intoxication and General Intent Included Offence Rule +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ekkian Misel Googoo

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused commit aggravated assault or a lesser included offence (assault causing bodily harm)?
  2. 2 Whether Count 2 is a separate offence or subsumed within Count 1 as a single transaction
  3. 3 Whether the accused returned to the scene as alleged (credibility of accused vs witnesses)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the accused intentionally assaulted Miranda and Tania; the judge accepted crown witnesses and rejected the accused's account, found intoxication irrelevant to general intent, held Count 2 was subsumed in Count 1 as a single transaction and that the facts did not meet the threshold for aggravated assault but did establish assault causing bodily harm for Count 1; guilty verdict on Count 3 and acquittal on Count 2.

Court Disposition

Count 1: Not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of the included offence of assault causing bodily harm; Count 2: Not guilty (subsumed in Count 1); Count 3: Guilty as charged (assault under s.266).

Orders

  • Count 1: Convicted of assault causing bodily harm (included offence)
  • Count 1: Acquitted of aggravated assault