R. v. Simpson

R. v. Simpson

The court found the videotaped statement voluntary; on the facts Simpson honestly believed he was owed wages and established colour of right negating theft/robbery beyond reasonable doubt; the Crown's late attempt to amend to extortion would cause irreparable prejudice and extortion is not an included offence of robbery; breaches of recognizance proved for counts 4–6; counts 8–9 dismissed for want of prosecution.

Citation
2013 NSPC 90
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Richard Alexander Simpson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court Trial Decision
Outcome
Counts 1, 2, 3 and 7: Not Guilty; Counts 4, 5 and 6: Guilty; Counts 8 and 9: Dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Robbery, Extortion, Colour of Right, Voluntariness of Statement, Voir Dire, Amendment of Indictment, Possession of Weapon, Breach of Recognizance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Bail/recognizance Robbery Extortion Colour of Right Voluntariness of Statement +4 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Richard Alexander Simpson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Simpson's videotaped statement was voluntary and admissible
  2. 2 Whether the taking of $300 constituted robbery (theft) or was protected by colour of right
  3. 3 Whether the Crown could amend robbery charge to extortion after trial arguments without causing irreparable prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the videotaped statement voluntary; on the facts Simpson honestly believed he was owed wages and established colour of right negating theft/robbery beyond reasonable doubt; the Crown's late attempt to amend to extortion would cause irreparable prejudice and extortion is not an included offence of robbery; breaches of recognizance proved for counts 4–6; counts 8–9 dismissed for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Counts 1, 2, 3 and 7: Not Guilty; Counts 4, 5 and 6: Guilty; Counts 8 and 9: Dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • Acquittal entered on Count 1 (Robbery s.344)
  • Acquittals entered on Count 2 (use of an imitation firearm s.85(2)(a)) and Count 3 (possession of imitation weapon s.88(1))