R. v. Potter

R. v. Potter

Acquittal: Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite knowledge/mens rea or wilful blindness for criminal harassment and failed to prove the complainant reasonably feared for her safety; recognizance breach charges failed because Crown did not prove the underlying recognizances/charges were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2020 NSSC 369
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Roland Chester Potter
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Not guilty on all counts
Legal Topics
Criminal Harassment (s.264 Criminal Code), Breach of Recognizance (s.145 Criminal Code), Peace Bond/prior Conduct, Boundary/disputed Land Dispute, Evidentiary Burden and Mens Rea
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Property Law Criminal Harassment (s.264 Criminal Code) Breach of Recognizance (s.145 Criminal Code) Peace Bond/prior Conduct Boundary/disputed Land Dispute Evidentiary Burden and Mens Rea

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Roland Chester Potter

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's conduct constituted criminal harassment under s.264 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved the accused had the requisite knowledge/mens rea or was wilfully blind to the risk of harassment
  3. 3 Whether the complainant reasonably feared for her or her family's safety

Ratio Decidendi

Acquittal: Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite knowledge/mens rea or wilful blindness for criminal harassment and failed to prove the complainant reasonably feared for her safety; recognizance breach charges failed because Crown did not prove the underlying recognizances/charges were subsisting when the indictment was filed.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on all counts