R. v. Barkhouse

R. v. Barkhouse

The court held that the Crown must prove the basic elements of the offence including mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the burden to establish a 'reasonable excuse' under s.254(5) lies with the defendant on a balance of probabilities; on the facts the judge found a reasonable doubt as to mens rea and therefore acquitted the accused.

Citation
2008 NSPC 2
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Paulette Barkhouse
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal S.254(5) Failure to Comply With Approved Screening Device Demand / Provincial Court Trial Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Not guilty (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand, Reasonable Excuse, Burden of Proof, Mens Rea, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand Reasonable Excuse Burden of Proof Mens Rea Credibility Assessment

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Paulette Barkhouse

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal S.254(5) Failure to Comply With Approved Screening Device Demand / Provincial Court Trial Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 On whom and to what standard does the burden of proof for a 'reasonable excuse' under s.254(5) lie?
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for offence under s.254(5)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Crown must prove the basic elements of the offence including mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the burden to establish a 'reasonable excuse' under s.254(5) lies with the defendant on a balance of probabilities; on the facts the judge found a reasonable doubt as to mens rea and therefore acquitted the accused.

Court Disposition

Not guilty (acquitted)

Orders

  • Paulette Barkhouse is acquitted of the offence contrary to s.254(5) of the Criminal Code.