R. v. Legrow

R. v. Legrow

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge reasonably applied W.(D.) principles and made credibility findings supported by the evidence and corroboration; the proposed fresh expert evidence was excluded as it failed Palmer criteria (notably defective assumptions and due diligence) and would not have changed the verdict; causation need not be proved by expert evidence where the trial judge reasonably infers it from accepted testimony and surrounding facts.

Citation
2019 BCSC 1999
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Justin John Patrick Legrow
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (assault Causing Bodily Harm) / Summary Conviction Appeal Under S.813 Criminal Code From Provincial Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Credibility Assessment, Fresh Evidence (palmer Test), Causation, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Appeal Forensic Expert Evidence Assault Causing Bodily Harm Credibility Assessment Fresh Evidence (palmer Test) Causation +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Justin John Patrick Legrow

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (assault Causing Bodily Harm) / Summary Conviction Appeal Under S.813 Criminal Code From Provincial Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misapplied R. v. W.(D.) in assessing credibility
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding causation of bodily harm relying on complainant evidence without medical/biomechanical expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to a misapprehension of evidence or concession

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge reasonably applied W.(D.) principles and made credibility findings supported by the evidence and corroboration; the proposed fresh expert evidence was excluded as it failed Palmer criteria (notably defective assumptions and due diligence) and would not have changed the verdict; causation need not be proved by expert evidence where the trial judge reasonably infers it from accepted testimony and surrounding facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for assault causing bodily harm under s.267(b) of the Criminal Code upheld
  • Application to admit expert report denied