R. v. Forrester et al.

R. v. Forrester et al.

There was no evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the subjective belief that violence was the only way to preserve themselves, and even assuming subjective belief arguable, no reasonable jury could find that belief objectively reasonable because the accused's conduct did not address the threatened risk and other reasonable alternatives existed; therefore the self‑defence defence lacked an air of reality and must be excluded from the jury's consideration.

Citation
2004 BCSC 922
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Charles Forrester; Accused: Jody Ryan Johnson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial After Close of Evidence — Ruling on Whether Defence of Self‑defence Should Be Left to the Jury
Outcome
Application to have self‑defence under s.34(2) left to the jury denied for both accused
Legal Topics
Self‑defence (s.34(2)), Air of Reality Test, Limited Weighing, Jury Directions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Self‑defence (s.34(2)) Air of Reality Test Limited Weighing Jury Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Charles Forrester

Accused

Jody Ryan Johnson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial After Close of Evidence — Ruling on Whether Defence of Self‑defence Should Be Left to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of self‑defence under s.34(2) had an air of reality sufficient to be left to the jury
  2. 2 Whether accused had the subjective belief that violence was the only means to preserve themselves
  3. 3 Whether the accused's belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the subjective belief that violence was the only way to preserve themselves, and even assuming subjective belief arguable, no reasonable jury could find that belief objectively reasonable because the accused's conduct did not address the threatened risk and other reasonable alternatives existed; therefore the self‑defence defence lacked an air of reality and must be excluded from the jury's consideration.

Court Disposition

Application to have self‑defence under s.34(2) left to the jury denied for both accused

Orders

  • Self‑defence under s.34(2) excluded from jury instructions; defence not left to the jury