R. v. Dimock

R. v. Dimock

The judge accepted Holland's testimony, corroborated by police, bystanders and expert medical evidence, and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unlawful confinement, threats and mischief. The defence claim of self-defence of a third party failed for lack of an air of reality (Williams was not credible) and, alternatively, was disproven beyond a reasonable doubt; identification evidence was insufficient for the alleged s.145(3) breaches, leading to acquittal on those counts.

Citation
2021 NSSC 154
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Benjamin Thomas Dimock
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Verdict and Decision
Outcome
Accused convicted of aggravated assault (s.268), assault with a weapon (s.267(a)), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (s.88(1)), unlawful confinement (s.279(2)), threats (s.264) and mischief (s.430(3)); acquitted of breaches under s.145(3) (failing to comply with recognizance).
Legal Topics
Assault, Aggravated Assault, Assault With a Weapon, Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, Unlawful Confinement, Threats, Mischief, Breach of Recognizance, Self Defence, Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses, Expert Medical Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Assault Aggravated Assault Assault With a Weapon Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose Unlawful Confinement Threats +5 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Benjamin Thomas Dimock

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Verdict and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unlawful confinement, threats and mischief
  2. 2 Whether the breaches of recognizance (s.145(3)) were proven by identification evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was an air of reality for self-defence of a third party and, if so, whether the Crown disproved it beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted Holland's testimony, corroborated by police, bystanders and expert medical evidence, and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unlawful confinement, threats and mischief. The defence claim of self-defence of a third party failed for lack of an air of reality (Williams was not credible) and, alternatively, was disproven beyond a reasonable doubt; identification evidence was insufficient for the alleged s.145(3) breaches, leading to acquittal on those counts.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of aggravated assault (s.268), assault with a weapon (s.267(a)), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (s.88(1)), unlawful confinement (s.279(2)), threats (s.264) and mischief (s.430(3)); acquitted of breaches under s.145(3) (failing to comply with recognizance).