R. v. Wong

R. v. Wong

Court held Crown failed to prove knowledge at the immediate departure (~7:08 a.m.) but proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the accused's subsequent returns to the scene (when he parked in the garage and then later entered the alley and interacted with the injured person and police) he knew or was wilfully blind to having struck a person and left to escape civil or criminal liability; deletion of surveillance footage and a misleading statement to police corroborated intent, warranting conviction under s.252(1.2).

Citation
2017 BCSC 646
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Joe Yut Wong
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment Under S.252(1.2) Criminal Code / Trial Judgment (convicted)
Outcome
Guilty (convicted under s.252(1.2) Criminal Code - hit and run)
Legal Topics
Hit and Run (s.252 Criminal Code), Mens Rea, Wilful Blindness, Surveillance Video Evidence, Admissions Under S.655 Criminal Code, Expert Evidence (collision and Human Factors), Failure to Stop/give Name and Render Assistance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Offences Evidence Hit and Run (s.252 Criminal Code) Mens Rea Wilful Blindness Surveillance Video Evidence Admissions Under S.655 Criminal Code +2 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Joe Yut Wong

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment Under S.252(1.2) Criminal Code / Trial Judgment (convicted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mens rea (knowledge or wilful blindness) was established at the time the accused first left the scene (~7:08 a.m.)
  2. 2 Whether mens rea was established when the accused returned to the scene (~7:18–7:21 a.m.) and again when he returned (~7:30–7:49 a.m.)
  3. 3 Whether deletion of surveillance footage and a misleading statement to police demonstrate intent to escape civil or criminal liability

Ratio Decidendi

Court held Crown failed to prove knowledge at the immediate departure (~7:08 a.m.) but proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the accused's subsequent returns to the scene (when he parked in the garage and then later entered the alley and interacted with the injured person and police) he knew or was wilfully blind to having struck a person and left to escape civil or criminal liability; deletion of surveillance footage and a misleading statement to police corroborated intent, warranting conviction under s.252(1.2).

Court Disposition

Guilty (convicted under s.252(1.2) Criminal Code - hit and run)

Orders

  • Convicted of the offence set out in the Indictment contrary to s.252(1.2) of the Criminal Code