R. v. Basso

R. v. Basso

The court rejected the officer's account because of significant omissions and inconsistencies in his contemporaneous notes and reports that contradicted the objective video evidence; the video and corroborating medical and eyewitness evidence proved the officer struck Simard without lawful justification under s.25, causing bodily harm, so the accused was guilty of assault causing bodily harm; however the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly authored false reports with intent to mislead Cst. Conrad and divert suspicion, so acquitted on public mischief.

Citation
2019 NSPC 80
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Laurence Gary Basso
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty on count 1 (assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b)); Not guilty on count 2 (public mischief contrary to s.140(1)(b)); Directed verdict granted for count 3 (breach of trust contrary to s.122) at close of Crown case
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b)), Public Mischief (s.140(1)(b)), Use of Force / Section 25 Justification, Police Note Taking and Credibility, Causation of Injury
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Police Conduct Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b)) Public Mischief (s.140(1)(b)) Use of Force / Section 25 Justification Police Note Taking and Credibility Causation of Injury

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Laurence Gary Basso

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether touching the shoulder constituted an assault
  2. 2 Whether the cheek/face strike was an assault
  3. 3 Whether the officer's use of force was proportionate, reasonable and necessary under s.25(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The court rejected the officer's account because of significant omissions and inconsistencies in his contemporaneous notes and reports that contradicted the objective video evidence; the video and corroborating medical and eyewitness evidence proved the officer struck Simard without lawful justification under s.25, causing bodily harm, so the accused was guilty of assault causing bodily harm; however the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly authored false reports with intent to mislead Cst. Conrad and divert suspicion, so acquitted on public mischief.

Court Disposition

Guilty on count 1 (assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b)); Not guilty on count 2 (public mischief contrary to s.140(1)(b)); Directed verdict granted for count 3 (breach of trust contrary to s.122) at close of Crown case

Orders

  • Convicted of assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code
  • Acquitted of public mischief contrary to section 140(1)(b) of the Criminal Code