R. v. Gough

R. v. Gough

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally applied force when he punched the complainant (not an involuntary reflex) and that self-defence did not apply because there was provocation, no air of reality to a necessity/proportionality claim and the force used was excessive; accordingly the accused is guilty of assault contrary to s.266.

Citation
2012 NSPC 49
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Michael Gough; Complainant: Tanya Rodgers
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault / Trial (guilt Determination)
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Assault, Self Defence, Mens Rea, Credibility Assessment, Reflex Action
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Assault Self Defence Mens Rea Credibility Assessment Reflex Action

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 9 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Michael Gough

Accused

Tanya Rodgers

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault / Trial (guilt Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved assault beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the accused's punch was an involuntary reflex action (no mens rea)
  3. 3 Whether the accused's actions were justified by self-defence under ss.34(1) or 37 of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally applied force when he punched the complainant (not an involuntary reflex) and that self-defence did not apply because there was provocation, no air of reality to a necessity/proportionality claim and the force used was excessive; accordingly the accused is guilty of assault contrary to s.266.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Found guilty of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.