R. v. Taylor

R. v. Taylor

Trial judge accepted complainant's voice identification and corroborating evidence (emails, surveillance, third‑party contacts, items on vehicle, threatening gesture) and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused both breached his probation by contacting the complainant and committed criminal harassment under s.264 by repeatedly communicating, watching the residence and engaging in threatening conduct, with knowledge or wilful blindness and no justification.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2208
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Thomas Andrew Sandy Taylor
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Guilty on both counts
Legal Topics
Breach of Probation (s.733.1 Criminal Code), Criminal Harassment (s.264 Criminal Code), Identification by Voice, Surveillance/stalking, Recklessness/wilful Blindness
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Breach of Probation (s.733.1 Criminal Code) Criminal Harassment (s.264 Criminal Code) Identification by Voice Surveillance/stalking Recklessness/wilful Blindness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Thomas Andrew Sandy Taylor

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused made the voice message and thereby breached probation
  2. 2 Whether accused engaged in conduct falling within s.264(2)(b),(c),(d) (repeated communication, watching/besetting, threatening conduct)
  3. 3 Whether complainant was harassed and reasonably feared for safety

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge accepted complainant's voice identification and corroborating evidence (emails, surveillance, third‑party contacts, items on vehicle, threatening gesture) and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused both breached his probation by contacting the complainant and committed criminal harassment under s.264 by repeatedly communicating, watching the residence and engaging in threatening conduct, with knowledge or wilful blindness and no justification.

Court Disposition

Guilty on both counts

Orders

  • Found guilty of breaching a term of a probation order contrary to s.733.1 of the Criminal Code
  • Found guilty of criminal harassment contrary to s.264 of the Criminal Code