R. v. Crawley

R. v. Crawley

The officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties; his brief physical contact to keep distance and investigate was a reasonable and necessary exercise of police powers under the Waterfield framework; the accused intentionally pushed the officer's hand twice after a warning and therefore committed assault on a peace officer and breached recognizance conditions.

Citation
2015 NSPC 88
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: David Cordell Crawley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal (summary) / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)
Outcome
Guilty of assaulting a peace officer contrary to s.270(1)(a) and guilty of two counts of breaching recognizance contrary to s.811; acquitted of uttering threats under s.264.1(1)(a) and of causing a disturbance under s.175(1)(a)(i).
Legal Topics
Assault on a Peace Officer, Investigative Detention, Recognizance Breach, Waterfield Test, Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Police Powers and Duties Evidence Assault on a Peace Officer Investigative Detention Recognizance Breach Waterfield Test Reasonable Doubt

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

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

David Cordell Crawley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (summary) / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused intentionally apply force to a peace officer?
  2. 2 Was the officer engaged in the execution of his duties when contact occurred?
  3. 3 Was the officer's contact a justified, proportionate exercise of police powers?

Ratio Decidendi

The officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties; his brief physical contact to keep distance and investigate was a reasonable and necessary exercise of police powers under the Waterfield framework; the accused intentionally pushed the officer's hand twice after a warning and therefore committed assault on a peace officer and breached recognizance conditions.

Court Disposition

Guilty of assaulting a peace officer contrary to s.270(1)(a) and guilty of two counts of breaching recognizance contrary to s.811; acquitted of uttering threats under s.264.1(1)(a) and of causing a disturbance under s.175(1)(a)(i).

Orders

  • Found guilty of assaulting a peace officer contrary to s.270(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
  • Found guilty of two counts of breaching recognizance contrary to s.811 of the Criminal Code