R. v. Taylor

R. v. Taylor

The trial judge correctly applied the objective test to the words and context, found that the message would be reasonably perceived as threats under s.264.1(1)(a), and correctly held that Charter protections do not extend to threatening statements; therefore the conviction was properly upheld.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 455
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/appellant: Thomas Andrew Taylor
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (british Columbia Supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for uttering threats upheld.
Legal Topics
Uttering Threats, Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Objective Reasonable Person Test, Section 264.1(1)(a) Criminal Code
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Rights Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Uttering Threats Mens Rea Actus Reus +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Thomas Andrew Taylor

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (british Columbia Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the answering‑machine message constituted uttering threats contrary to s.264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's Charter rights to freedom of expression and religion protected the message
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly applied the objective test for intent and considered actus reus and mens rea

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly applied the objective test to the words and context, found that the message would be reasonably perceived as threats under s.264.1(1)(a), and correctly held that Charter protections do not extend to threatening statements; therefore the conviction was properly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for uttering threats upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for uttering threats under s.264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code affirmed.