R. v. Colley et Al.

R. v. Colley et Al.

After assessing credibility and corroboration, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Alex Newcombe committed robbery by using threats/violence to obtain the complainant's watch (s.343(a)/s.344) and that Walter Newcombe committed robbery by being in possession of and having taken the complainant's broken gold chain (s.343(b)/s.344; theft s.322), whereas Colley and McDonald were not proven to have committed robbery but were proven to have committed assault contrary to s.266; defences of self‑defence and defence of property were rejected.

Citation
2021 NSPC 37
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jermaine Cameron Colley; Accused: Alex Newcombe; Accused: Walter Newcombe; Accused: McKenzie MacDonald
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Robbery (indictable) / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Judge found Alex Newcombe and Walter Newcombe guilty of robbery (contrary to s.344 Criminal Code); Jermaine Cameron Colley and McKenzie MacDonald acquitted of robbery but convicted of assault (s.266).
Legal Topics
Robbery, Assault, Self Defence, Defence of Property, Witness Credibility, Vetrovec Warning, Included Offences, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedure Robbery Assault Self Defence Defence of Property Witness Credibility +3 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Jermaine Cameron Colley

Accused

Alex Newcombe

Accused

Walter Newcombe

Accused

McKenzie MacDonald

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Robbery (indictable) / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether each accused committed robbery contrary to s.344 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether lesser included offences (assault; assault causing bodily harm) apply
  3. 3 Whether self-defence or defence of property applies to accused

Ratio Decidendi

After assessing credibility and corroboration, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Alex Newcombe committed robbery by using threats/violence to obtain the complainant's watch (s.343(a)/s.344) and that Walter Newcombe committed robbery by being in possession of and having taken the complainant's broken gold chain (s.343(b)/s.344; theft s.322), whereas Colley and McDonald were not proven to have committed robbery but were proven to have committed assault contrary to s.266; defences of self‑defence and defence of property were rejected.

Court Disposition

Judge found Alex Newcombe and Walter Newcombe guilty of robbery (contrary to s.344 Criminal Code); Jermaine Cameron Colley and McKenzie MacDonald acquitted of robbery but convicted of assault (s.266).

Orders

  • Find Alex Newcombe guilty of robbery contrary to s.344 Criminal Code
  • Find Walter Newcombe guilty of robbery contrary to s.344 Criminal Code