R. v. D.M.G.

R. v. D.M.G.

The court accepted the expert medical evidence that HM suffered multiple inflicted high‑force injuries occurring shortly before the 911 call, accepted the accused's earlier admissions and contemporaneous 911 account that he was alone with the child, found the accused had exclusive opportunity and that a reasonable person applying such force would foresee bodily harm, and therefore convicted the accused of aggravated assault (wounding) under s.268(1) while acquitting him of s.267(b) assault causing bodily harm on grounds of reasonable doubt as to specific injuries.

Citation
2016 NSSC 235
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: D.M.G.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty of aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) (particularized as wounding); Acquitted of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b).
Legal Topics
Aggravated Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Expert Evidence, Admissions and Voluntariness, Credibility and W(d) Rule, Publication Ban S.486.4
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Child Protection Medical Evidence Aggravated Assault Assault Causing Bodily Harm Expert Evidence Admissions and Voluntariness Credibility and W(d) 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

D.M.G.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did D.M.G. commit an aggravated assault upon HM contrary to s.268(1) Criminal Code?
  2. 2 Did D.M.G. commit an assault causing bodily harm upon HM contrary to s.267(1)(b) Criminal Code?

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the expert medical evidence that HM suffered multiple inflicted high‑force injuries occurring shortly before the 911 call, accepted the accused's earlier admissions and contemporaneous 911 account that he was alone with the child, found the accused had exclusive opportunity and that a reasonable person applying such force would foresee bodily harm, and therefore convicted the accused of aggravated assault (wounding) under s.268(1) while acquitting him of s.267(b) assault causing bodily harm on grounds of reasonable doubt as to specific injuries.

Court Disposition

Guilty of aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1) (particularized as wounding); Acquitted of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b).

Orders

  • Publication ban imposed pursuant to s.486.4 Criminal Code (restriction on identifying victim/witness)
  • Conviction recorded for aggravated assault contrary to s.268(1)