R. v. Lomax

R. v. Lomax

The judge found the defence failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a proper foundation for automatism or that the accused suffered a s.16 mental disorder at the time of the offence; the court lawfully ordered and considered an assessment under ss.672.11/672.12 and such an order did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; on the totality of the evidence the Crown proved robbery beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction was entered.

Citation
2002 NSPC 31
Parties
Prosecutor: R; Defendant: Brian Lomax
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Robbery / Trial Judgment (verdict)
Outcome
Guilty; conviction entered for robbery
Legal Topics
Robbery (s.343), Not Criminally Responsible (s.16), Automatism (non Mental/mental Disorder), Assessment Orders (ss.672.11, 672.12, 672.13), Mistrial and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Mental Disorder (insanity/automatism) Evidence Procedure (assessment Orders, Mistrial) Robbery (s.343) Not Criminally Responsible (s.16) Automatism (non Mental/mental Disorder) Assessment Orders (ss.672.11,672.12,672.13) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecutor

Brian Lomax

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Robbery / Trial Judgment (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence rendering him not criminally responsible under s.16
  2. 2 Whether the judge's sua sponte order for an assessment under ss.672.11/672.12 justified a mistrial or created a reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether the defence of automatism had a proper factual and expert foundation to be left to the trier of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the defence failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a proper foundation for automatism or that the accused suffered a s.16 mental disorder at the time of the offence; the court lawfully ordered and considered an assessment under ss.672.11/672.12 and such an order did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; on the totality of the evidence the Crown proved robbery beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction was entered.

Court Disposition

Guilty; conviction entered for robbery

Orders

  • Conviction entered for robbery contrary to Criminal Code s.343
  • Assessment order pursuant to Criminal Code ss.672.11/672.12 executed and report pursuant to s.672.13 considered in evidence