R. v. Alphonse

R. v. Alphonse

Applying Khill's holistic s.34 framework and W.(D.) credibility principles, the Crown failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted for a defensive purpose and that his response was unreasonable; eyewitness and contextual evidence created reasonable doubt about whether the deceased remained a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 BCSC 572
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Rex; Accused/defendant: Andrew Steve Alphonse; Deceased/complainant: Richard Henry
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Manslaughter (unlawful Act) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons) Acquittal
Outcome
Accused acquitted of count 1 (manslaughter).
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code), Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Use of Force, Reasonableness of Force
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Analysis Manslaughter Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code) Unlawful Act Manslaughter Use of Force Reasonableness of Force

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

Parties

Rex

Crown/prosecution

Andrew Steve Alphonse

Accused/defendant

Richard Henry

Deceased/complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Manslaughter (unlawful Act) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons) Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused cause the deceased's death by means of an unlawful act (assault causing bodily harm)?
  2. 2 Was the accused's conduct committed for the purpose of defending himself (s.34(1)(b))?
  3. 3 Was the accused's use of force reasonable in the circumstances (s.34(1)(c))?

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Khill's holistic s.34 framework and W.(D.) credibility principles, the Crown failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted for a defensive purpose and that his response was unreasonable; eyewitness and contextual evidence created reasonable doubt about whether the deceased remained a threat and about the sequence and timing of fatal blows, therefore acquittal was required under s.34.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted of count 1 (manslaughter).

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty on count 1 (indictment)