R. v. English

R. v. English

Given the accepted evidence, the accused's fear was speculative and did not meet the requirement of clear and imminent peril; therefore there was no air of reality to the defence of necessity and it should not be left to the jury.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1292
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Joseph Paul English
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Trial at Close of Evidence — Pre Charge Ruling on Defence of Necessity (air of Reality)
Outcome
Defence of necessity excluded; not left to the jury.
Legal Topics
Defence of Necessity, Air of Reality Test, Imminent Peril, Proportionality, Motor Vehicle Act S.215
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Defence of Necessity Air of Reality Test Imminent Peril Proportionality Motor Vehicle Act S.215

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

Parties

Regina

Crown

Joseph Paul English

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Jury Trial at Close of Evidence — Pre Charge Ruling on Defence of Necessity (air of Reality)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an air of reality to the defence of necessity
  2. 2 Whether the accused faced clear and imminent peril when he seized and drove the police vehicle
  3. 3 Whether there was no reasonable legal alternative available to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Given the accepted evidence, the accused's fear was speculative and did not meet the requirement of clear and imminent peril; therefore there was no air of reality to the defence of necessity and it should not be left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Defence of necessity excluded; not left to the jury.

Orders

  • Application to put necessity defence to the jury dismissed