R. v. Anderson

R. v. Anderson

Video and witness evidence established that the accused placed himself at the front of the crowd, confronted police, threw objects, spat, refused to disperse and interfered with emergency personnel; these acts, viewed in context, permit the inference of subjective intent or, at minimum, recklessness to take part in a riot under s.65; the punch to firefighter was not self-defence because the accused provoked the interaction and used disproportionate force; swinging a bag at and striking a uniformed officer's shield established assault of a peace officer who was acting in the execution of his duty; accordingly guilty on all counts.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1660
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dustin Wade Jewell Anderson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Accused found guilty on all counts
Legal Topics
Riot, Assault, Assault of a Peace Officer, Self Defence, Mens Rea (intent and Recklessness), Police and Emergency Responder Interaction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Public Order Evidence Riot Assault Assault of a Peace Officer Self Defence Mens Rea (intent and Recklessness) +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dustin Wade Jewell Anderson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused took part in a riot under s.65 of the Criminal Code and the required mens rea
  2. 2 Whether the accused acted with subjective intent to take part in the riot or was reckless
  3. 3 Whether the punch to firefighter Maffei was justified as self-defence

Ratio Decidendi

Video and witness evidence established that the accused placed himself at the front of the crowd, confronted police, threw objects, spat, refused to disperse and interfered with emergency personnel; these acts, viewed in context, permit the inference of subjective intent or, at minimum, recklessness to take part in a riot under s.65; the punch to firefighter was not self-defence because the accused provoked the interaction and used disproportionate force; swinging a bag at and striking a uniformed officer's shield established assault of a peace officer who was acting in the execution of his duty; accordingly guilty on all counts.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on all counts

Orders

  • Count 1: Guilty of taking part in a riot contrary to s.65 Criminal Code
  • Count 2: Guilty of assault (Mr. Maffei) contrary to s.265 Criminal Code