R. v. Tom

R. v. Tom

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father's admitted shaking caused the subdural haemorrhage (insufficient causal link given credible conflicting expert evidence), and failed to prove criminal negligence or failure to provide necessaries; however the father's admissions that he struck and shook the child established the included offence of assault simpliciter on Counts 1 and 4; the mother was acquitted on all counts due to insufficient proof linking her to the injurious acts.

Citation
2007 BCSC 1407
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Ellen Marie Tom; Accused: Lenard Tom
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Child Abuse / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Count 1: Ellen Tom not guilty; Lenard Tom not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of assault simpliciter. Count 2: both accused not guilty. Count 3: both accused not guilty. Count 4: Ellen Tom not guilty; Lenard Tom not guilty of assault causing bodily harm but guilty of assault simpliciter.
Legal Topics
Assault, Aggravated Assault, Criminal Negligence, Failure to Provide Necessaries, Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Statements, Post Offence Conduct, Deemed Parental Consent
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Child Protection Evidence Forensic Medicine Assault Aggravated Assault Criminal Negligence Failure to Provide Necessaries +4 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ellen Marie Tom

Accused

Lenard Tom

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Child Abuse / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shaking by father caused subdural haemorrhage and thus aggravated assault
  2. 2 Whether either parent intentionally caused burn and bruising
  3. 3 Whether parents criminally neglected or failed to provide necessaries

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father's admitted shaking caused the subdural haemorrhage (insufficient causal link given credible conflicting expert evidence), and failed to prove criminal negligence or failure to provide necessaries; however the father's admissions that he struck and shook the child established the included offence of assault simpliciter on Counts 1 and 4; the mother was acquitted on all counts due to insufficient proof linking her to the injurious acts.

Court Disposition

Count 1: Ellen Tom not guilty; Lenard Tom not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of assault simpliciter. Count 2: both accused not guilty. Count 3: both accused not guilty. Count 4: Ellen Tom not guilty; Lenard Tom not guilty of assault causing bodily harm but guilty of assault simpliciter.