R. v. Douglas

R. v. Douglas

There is no air of reality to the defence of self‑defence with respect to Count 2 because, on the evidence (including White's direct testimony, Douglas's own statements, autopsy and circumstances), no properly instructed jury acting reasonably could find that Douglas believed on reasonable grounds that Belcourt was threatening force, that he shot Belcourt for the purpose of defending himself, or that shooting Belcourt in the head was reasonable in the circumstances; accordingly the defence must not be left to the jury.

Citation
2017 BCSC 1605
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Aaron David James Douglas
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder (pre Trial) / Oral Reasons on Air of Reality for Self‑defence (judge's Ruling)
Outcome
Self‑defence excluded for Count 2 (death of Tyler Belcourt); not left to the jury.
Legal Topics
Self‑defence, Air of Reality Test, Section 34 Criminal Code, Jury Instructions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Self‑defence Air of Reality Test Section 34 Criminal Code Jury Instructions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Aaron David James Douglas

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder (pre Trial) / Oral Reasons on Air of Reality for Self‑defence (judge's Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an air of reality to the defence of self‑defence in relation to Count 2 (death of Tyler Belcourt)
  2. 2 Whether evidence supports a belief on reasonable grounds that Belcourt was using or threatening force against the accused
  3. 3 Whether the shooting of Belcourt was done for the purpose of defending or protecting the accused

Ratio Decidendi

There is no air of reality to the defence of self‑defence with respect to Count 2 because, on the evidence (including White's direct testimony, Douglas's own statements, autopsy and circumstances), no properly instructed jury acting reasonably could find that Douglas believed on reasonable grounds that Belcourt was threatening force, that he shot Belcourt for the purpose of defending himself, or that shooting Belcourt in the head was reasonable in the circumstances; accordingly the defence must not be left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Self‑defence excluded for Count 2 (death of Tyler Belcourt); not left to the jury.

Orders

  • Do not instruct the jury on self‑defence in relation to Count 2 (death of Tyler Belcourt)