R. v. Gower

R. v. Gower

Trial judge found complainant credible and that accused provoked her by demeaning words and intentionally spitting in her face; provocation precluded reliance on s.34(1) and accused used more force than necessary (grabbing lapels and throwing her), so self-defence failed; circumstantial and eyewitness evidence (including placement on driveway and breaking of TV) established that accused wilfully or recklessly damaged the vehicle; post-offence flight reinforced culpability; therefore guilty of assault s.266(b) and mischief s.430(4).

Citation
2009 NSPC 17
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jonathan Dale Gower
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (guilty Verdict)
Outcome
Accused found guilty of assault contrary to Section 266(b) and guilty of mischief contrary to Section 430(4) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Assault, Mischief, Self Defence, Provocation, Evidence Credibility, Post Offence Conduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Assault Mischief Self Defence Provocation Evidence Credibility Post Offence Conduct

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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jonathan Dale Gower

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (guilty Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused assaulted the complainant contrary to s.266(b) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused wilfully or recklessly caused mischief to the complainant's vehicle contrary to s.430(4) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the defence of self-defence (s.34(1)) or defence of others (s.37) applies

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge found complainant credible and that accused provoked her by demeaning words and intentionally spitting in her face; provocation precluded reliance on s.34(1) and accused used more force than necessary (grabbing lapels and throwing her), so self-defence failed; circumstantial and eyewitness evidence (including placement on driveway and breaking of TV) established that accused wilfully or recklessly damaged the vehicle; post-offence flight reinforced culpability; therefore guilty of assault s.266(b) and mischief s.430(4).

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of assault contrary to Section 266(b) and guilty of mischief contrary to Section 430(4) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted of assault contrary to Section 266(b) Criminal Code
  • Convicted of mischief contrary to Section 430(4) Criminal Code