R. v. Ellis

R. v. Ellis

The court held the Crown proved specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not establish the potency or timing of any drugs or sufficient impairment; medical evidence showed the accused was alert and oriented; the accused’s conduct was rational and directed toward evasion; thus the common sense inference of intent was unrebutted and supports convictions for robbery and kidnapping.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1748
Parties
Crown/respondent: Regina; Accused/applicant: Christopher Wayne Ellis
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Convicted on Counts 2 through 10 inclusive; Count 1 stayed by the Crown.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Kidnapping, Unlawful Confinement, Specific Intent Vs. Intoxication, DNA Evidence, Admissions of Fact S.655, Police Pursuit and Public Safety
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Science Drugs and Intoxication Road Safety/policing Robbery Kidnapping Unlawful Confinement +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/respondent

Christopher Wayne Ellis

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had requisite specific intent for robbery and kidnapping given evidence of methamphetamine use and intoxication
  2. 2 Whether the common law inference that one intends the natural and probable consequences of one’s acts is rebutted by alleged intoxication
  3. 3 Whether kidnapping requires carrying/transportation in addition to unlawful confinement

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Crown proved specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not establish the potency or timing of any drugs or sufficient impairment; medical evidence showed the accused was alert and oriented; the accused’s conduct was rational and directed toward evasion; thus the common sense inference of intent was unrebutted and supports convictions for robbery and kidnapping.

Court Disposition

Convicted on Counts 2 through 10 inclusive; Count 1 stayed by the Crown.

Orders

  • Convicted of Counts 2 to 10 inclusive
  • Count 1 stayed