R. v. Gullett

R. v. Gullett

The trial judge rejected the accused's account, found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to steal the Breaker and that his driving constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver causing serious bodily harm; accordingly the accused was convicted of theft (included in Count 1), criminal negligence causing bodily harm (Count 2), dangerous driving (Count 3), and leaving the scene to escape liability (Count 6), and acquitted on break and enter (Count 1), wounding (Count 4), the count concerning awareness of striking the complainant (Count 5), and mischief counts (Counts 7–9) because wilful damage was not proven.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1917
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Forrest Alexander Gullett
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Oral Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Legal Topics
Break and Enter, Theft, Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm, Dangerous Driving, Wounding, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Mischief, Self Defence, Kienapple (conviction Overlap)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Property Offences Traffic Law Personal Injury Break and Enter Theft Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm Dangerous Driving +5 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Forrest Alexander Gullett

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Oral Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused intended to steal the Breaker or was acting as a good Samaritan
  2. 2 Whether the accused acted in self-defence or under a reasonable fear for his safety
  3. 3 Whether the accused's driving constituted criminal negligence/dangerous driving causing bodily harm

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge rejected the accused's account, found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to steal the Breaker and that his driving constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver causing serious bodily harm; accordingly the accused was convicted of theft (included in Count 1), criminal negligence causing bodily harm (Count 2), dangerous driving (Count 3), and leaving the scene to escape liability (Count 6), and acquitted on break and enter (Count 1), wounding (Count 4), the count concerning awareness of striking the complainant (Count 5), and mischief counts (Counts 7–9) because wilful damage was not proven.