R. v. Doran

R. v. Doran

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused damage by fire to property and knew or was reckless as to occupancy; the defence of necessity fails because the accused did not reasonably face clear and imminent danger, had reasonable lawful alternatives, and the harm caused was disproportionate to the harm she claimed to avoid; accordingly conviction for arson under s.433 follows.

Citation
2022 BCSC 1697
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Jennifer Patricia Doran; Amicus Curiae: P.R. Derksen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Arson / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty of arson under s.433 of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Arson (s.433 Criminal Code), Necessity Defence, Mens Rea Knowledge/recklessness as to Occupancy, Admissibility/voluntariness of Statement, Modified Objective Test
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Mental Health Law Statutory Interpretation Arson (s.433 Criminal Code) Necessity Defence Mens Rea Knowledge/recklessness as to Occupancy Admissibility/voluntariness of Statement +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Jennifer Patricia Doran

Accused

P.R. Derksen

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Arson / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the fire cause damage to property (The Village) by fire?
  2. 2 Did the Crown negate the accused's defence of necessity?
  3. 3 Was the accused reckless or did she know the property was occupied?

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused damage by fire to property and knew or was reckless as to occupancy; the defence of necessity fails because the accused did not reasonably face clear and imminent danger, had reasonable lawful alternatives, and the harm caused was disproportionate to the harm she claimed to avoid; accordingly conviction for arson under s.433 follows.

Court Disposition

Guilty of arson under s.433 of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted on Count 1 (arson)
  • Publication ban under s.486.5(1) of the Criminal Code restricting identification of victim/witness/undercover officer remains in place indefinitely