R. v. Nevett

R. v. Nevett

The judge found on the evidence that on Feb 21 the accused was unlawfully assaulted twice by the complainant and that his backhand was a proportionate act of self-defence under the Criminal Code as it stood at the time; the court declined to apply the 2013 amended self-defence provisions retrospectively. For the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 469
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Patrick Eugene Nevett; Complainant: Pamela Nevett
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment (oral Reasons After Trial)
Outcome
Accused acquitted on all five counts
Legal Topics
Assault, Self Defence, Dangerous Use of a Weapon, Threats, Credibility and Prior Inconsistent/consistent Statements, Retrospective Application of Statute
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Domestic Violence Evidence Assault Self Defence Dangerous Use of a Weapon Threats Credibility and Prior Inconsistent/consistent Statements +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Patrick Eugene Nevett

Accused

Pamela Nevett

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment (oral Reasons After Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed the assaults and threats alleged in Counts 1-5
  2. 2 Whether the accused's use of force on Feb 21, 2011 was justified by self-defence under Criminal Code s.34 as it stood at the time
  3. 3 Whether the amended self-defence provisions (Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, S.C. 2012, c.9) apply retrospectively

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found on the evidence that on Feb 21 the accused was unlawfully assaulted twice by the complainant and that his backhand was a proportionate act of self-defence under the Criminal Code as it stood at the time; the court declined to apply the 2013 amended self-defence provisions retrospectively. For the April 9 incident (Counts 3 and 4) and the July 17 incidents (Counts 2 and 5) the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt given material inconsistencies, corroborative evidence that cut both ways (emails, medical notes, witness testimony), and unresolved alternative explanations for injuries; consequently the accused was acquitted on all counts.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted on all five counts

Orders

  • Count 1: Not guilty (self-defence under pre-2013 Criminal Code s.34)
  • Count 2: Not guilty