R. v. McKinney

R. v. McKinney

The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found no error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the notice period and due diligence; the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore entitled to deference.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 BCSC 1931
Parties
Respondent (crown): Regina; Appellant/accused: Kevin McKinney
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Due Diligence, Notice Period, Standard of Review, Findings of Fact and Credibility
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Appellate Review Strict Liability Due Diligence Notice Period Standard of Review Findings of Fact and Credibility

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent (crown)

Kevin McKinney

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the reasonableness of the notice period
  2. 2 Whether the appellant exercised due diligence in respect of a strict liability offence
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should overturn the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found no error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the notice period and due diligence; the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore entitled to deference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed