R. v. Burger

R. v. Burger

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the specific intent to kill at the material time; the evidence supported an alternative lawful inference that the accused intended to frighten and restrain the victim to force a settlement. Consequently the accused is acquitted of attempted murder. However, the evidence established non‑consensual application of force causing bodily harm and threatening words in the context of the assault; convictions on assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat were warranted.

Citation
2000 BCSC 655
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Peter Heinz Burger
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm; acquitted of attempted murder; charge of possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace stayed by the Crown.
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Uttering Threats, Mens Rea, Actus Reus
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Family Law Domestic/family Violence Attempted Murder Aggravated Assault Assault Causing Bodily Harm Uttering Threats Mens Rea +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Peter Heinz Burger

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved specific intent to kill for attempted murder (mens rea)
  2. 2 Whether the accused committed an overt act beyond mere preparation (actus reus for attempt)
  3. 3 Whether assault causing bodily harm was established

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the specific intent to kill at the material time; the evidence supported an alternative lawful inference that the accused intended to frighten and restrain the victim to force a settlement. Consequently the accused is acquitted of attempted murder. However, the evidence established non‑consensual application of force causing bodily harm and threatening words in the context of the assault; convictions on assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat were warranted.

Court Disposition

Convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm; acquitted of attempted murder; charge of possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace stayed by the Crown.

Orders

  • Convicted: assault causing bodily harm
  • Convicted: uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm