R. v. Campbell

R. v. Campbell

Court found an air of reality to self-defence: defendant reasonably believed he faced an assault when the deceased advanced with a rifle; the defendant's subjective belief was reasonable in the circumstances and the force used (disarming strikes with the rifle butt) was not intended to cause death and was no more than necessary to repel the threat. Therefore Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt as to the manslaughter count. Necessity was rejected for the property damage to the door because legal alternatives existed and the defendant returned voluntarily intoxicated. Threat and mischief counts proven on the evidence.

Citation
2011 NSPC 61
Parties
Crown/plaintiff: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Clinton W. Campbell
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Manslaughter and Related Offences / Provincial Court Trial Decision (verdict)
Outcome
Acquitted of Count #1 (manslaughter s.236(a)); convicted on Counts #2, #3, #4 and #5 (threats and mischief)
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code), Necessity, Threats (s.264.1), Mischief (s.430), Air of Reality Evidential Test, Credibility Assessment, Intoxication and Causation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Homicide Law Defences to Crime Evidence Law Manslaughter Self Defence (s.34 Criminal Code) Necessity Threats (s.264.1) +4 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/plaintiff

Clinton W. Campbell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Manslaughter and Related Offences / Provincial Court Trial Decision (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the Crown proven the elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Is necessity available to the defendant
  3. 3 Is self-defence available to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Court found an air of reality to self-defence: defendant reasonably believed he faced an assault when the deceased advanced with a rifle; the defendant's subjective belief was reasonable in the circumstances and the force used (disarming strikes with the rifle butt) was not intended to cause death and was no more than necessary to repel the threat. Therefore Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt as to the manslaughter count. Necessity was rejected for the property damage to the door because legal alternatives existed and the defendant returned voluntarily intoxicated. Threat and mischief counts proven on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Acquitted of Count #1 (manslaughter s.236(a)); convicted on Counts #2, #3, #4 and #5 (threats and mischief)

Orders

  • Not guilty on Count #1: manslaughter contrary to s.236(a) Criminal Code
  • Guilty on Count #2: knowingly convey threat to Ron Gillis contrary to s.264.1(1)(a) Criminal Code