R v. Lilly

R v. Lilly

Judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Lilly, approximately 50 feet from CO Hicks, loudly yelled phrases identifying Hicks as a 'snitch' and telling him to 'stop testifying' in the context of Hicks being subpoenaed for the Burnside 15 trials; the words were intended to be taken seriously, to provoke a state...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 NSSC 138
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jacob Matthew Lilly
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (judge Alone)
Outcome
Guilty of the offence contrary to section 423.1(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Intimidation of a Justice System Participant, Witness Intimidation, Section 423.1(b) Criminal Code, Threats, Mens Rea, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Corrections Law Evidence Intimidation of a Justice System Participant Witness Intimidation Section 423.1(b) Criminal Code Threats Mens Rea +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Jacob Matthew Lilly

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (judge Alone)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused engaged in conduct without lawful authority with intent to provoke a state of fear in a justice system participant
  2. 2 Whether the words uttered amounted to a threat under s.423.1(b) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved the specific intent to impede performance of duties

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Lilly, approximately 50 feet from CO Hicks, loudly yelled phrases identifying Hicks as a 'snitch' and telling him to 'stop testifying' in the context of Hicks being subpoenaed for the Burnside 15 trials; the words were intended to be taken seriously, to provoke a state of fear in Hicks, and to impede him in the performance of his duties, thereby satisfying the elements of s.423.1(b) Criminal Code and warranting a conviction.

Court Disposition

Guilty of the offence contrary to section 423.1(b) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Finds the accused guilty of the offence contrary to section 423.1(b) of the Criminal Code.