R. v. Hazime
The evidence did not give any air of reality to the defence of self-defence and the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, demonstrate he rejected the accused's evidence and found it did not raise a reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction must stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40988
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Ahmed Hazime
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (sentence Appeal Abandoned)
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence abandoned by the appellant
- Legal Topics
- Self Defence, Credibility Assessment, Reasonable Doubt, Appeal Against Conviction, Sentence Abandonment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Ahmed Hazime
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (sentence Appeal Abandoned)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to consider the defence of self-defence
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to apply the W.D. middle ground test and thereby failed to determine whether the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence did not give any air of reality to the defence of self-defence and the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, demonstrate he rejected the accused's evidence and found it did not raise a reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction must stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence abandoned by the appellant
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed.
- Appeal against sentence abandoned by the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Hazime Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-02-02 Docket numbers C40988 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Rosenberg, Marc; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050202 DOCKET: C40988 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) -and- AHMED HAZIME (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, ROSENBERG and LaFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Frank Miller for the appellant Christine Tier for the respondent HEARD AND RELEASED ORALLY: January 31, 2005 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Edward Ducharme of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, on October 3, 2003 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Ducharme on November 21, 2003. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant has served the custodial part of his sentence and, therefore, abandons his appeal against sentence. [2] He raises two grounds of appeal against his conviction. First, he submits that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider the defence of self-defence. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, the evidence does not suggest any air of reality to this defence. In so stating, we have taken into account, not just the evidence of the participants to the incident, but also the differences in their size and weight. That the defence had no air of reality is borne out by the fact defence counsel did not argue the issue in his closing submissions. [3] Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to consider the middle ground in R. v. W.D. (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) – whether the defence evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt. Again, we disagree. Although the trial judge did not expressly set out the three-step formula prescribed by W.(D.), his reasons read as a whole and, especially at pp. 6-7, show that he not only rejected the accused’s evidence, but also found that it did not raise a reasonable doubt. [4] Accordingly, the appeal against conviction is dismissed. Signed: “John Laskin J.A.” “Marc Rosenberg J.A.” “H.S. LaForme J.A.”