R. v. Dixon

R. v. Dixon

The court found that Dixon uttered a conditional death threat to the Minister which, objectively and in context, was intended to intimidate; conditionality does not negate a threat under s.264.1 and the de minimis principle does not excuse a death threat to a public official, therefore Dixon is guilty of uttering a threat under s.264.1(1)(a).

Citation
2009 NSPC 11
Parties
Crown: The Queen; Accused: Gary John Dixon
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Uttering Threats / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Decision)
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Uttering Threats, Threats to Public Officials, De Minimis Principle, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Law Uttering Threats Threats to Public Officials De Minimis Principle Credibility Assessment

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

Parties

The Queen

Crown

Gary John Dixon

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Uttering Threats / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused uttered a threat contrary to s.264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the de minimis principle applies to an alleged death threat against a public official
  3. 3 Credibility and weight to be given to competing witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Dixon uttered a conditional death threat to the Minister which, objectively and in context, was intended to intimidate; conditionality does not negate a threat under s.264.1 and the de minimis principle does not excuse a death threat to a public official, therefore Dixon is guilty of uttering a threat under s.264.1(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Found guilty of uttering a threat contrary to s.264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.