R. v. Petrie

R. v. Petrie

The application was dismissed because the Crown need only prove identity of the person before the Court as the accused beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; proof that the accused 'owns' or 'claims' the literal name in the Indictment or the capacity in which the name is used is irrelevant; s.32 of the Charter does not exempt private citizens from the laws of Canada and s.52 was not properly invoked.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2109
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Scott Douglas Petrie
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offences) / Pre Trial Application to Dismiss (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification, Name Ownership/sovereign Citizen Argument, Charter S.32, Constitution Act S.52, Capacity in a Name, No Evidence Motion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Identification Name Ownership/sovereign Citizen Argument Charter S.32 Constitution Act S.52 Capacity in a Name +1 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 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Scott Douglas Petrie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offences) / Pre Trial Application to Dismiss (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown must prove the accused has 'claimed ownership' of the name in the Indictment
  2. 2 Whether the capacity in which a name is used affects criminal liability
  3. 3 Whether s.32 of the Charter excludes private citizens from application of the Constitution and laws

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Crown need only prove identity of the person before the Court as the accused beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; proof that the accused 'owns' or 'claims' the literal name in the Indictment or the capacity in which the name is used is irrelevant; s.32 of the Charter does not exempt private citizens from the laws of Canada and s.52 was not properly invoked.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to have charges dismissed for failure to prove ownership of the name dismissed
  • Related applications (capacity in a name, government agent argument under s.32, and s.52 argument) dismissed