R v Hashaw

R v Hashaw

There was an air of reality to self-defence and, on the totality of the evidence including the surveillance videos and witness testimony, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one element of s.34 was absent; specifically the complainant struck the accused in the back of the head and the accused's subsequent use of force was a reasonable and proportionate response to defend himself, therefore the accused was acquitted.

Citation
2025 NSPC 12
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Omar Hashaw
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Judge Alone Decision (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code), Air of Reality Test, Burden of Proof, W(d) Analysis, Video Surveillance Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Assault Causing Bodily Harm Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code) Air of Reality Test Burden of Proof W(d) Analysis +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Omar Hashaw

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Judge Alone Decision (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an air of reality to self-defence under s.34 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the Crown disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the accused's use of force was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There was an air of reality to self-defence and, on the totality of the evidence including the surveillance videos and witness testimony, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one element of s.34 was absent; specifically the complainant struck the accused in the back of the head and the accused's subsequent use of force was a reasonable and proportionate response to defend himself, therefore the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charge of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b) Criminal Code
  • No further orders recorded in decision