R. v. R.W.L.

R. v. R.W.L.

On the totality of the evidence and applying the applicable legal principles, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of consent for the sexual assault charges (counts 1 and 3), failed to prove intent to apply force for the assault (count 2), and failed to prove the subjective intent to threaten for count 4 despite an objective finding of actus reus; however, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused wilfully caused the death of the family dog (count 12) by intentionally leaving the dog in a known emerging fire and by his incriminating texts, warranting conviction on count 12 and acquittal on counts 1,2,3 and 4 (count 5 previously dismissed by...

Citation
2017 NSSC 111
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: R.W.L.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (decision Reserved; Oral Decision)
Outcome
Count 12: Guilty (s.445.1(1)(a)); Counts 1, 2, 3, 4: Not guilty (acquitted); Count 5: Directed verdict/non-suit (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Consent, Mens Rea, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility and Reliability of Witness Statements, Utterance of Threats, Directed Verdict, Videotaped Hearsay Statements, Forensic Fire Causes
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Domestic Violence Arson/fire Investigation Animal Cruelty Evidence Law Consent Mens Rea +6 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R.W.L.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (decision Reserved; Oral Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assaults (counts 1 and 3) given issues of consent and reliability of the complainant
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved assault (count 2) with requisite intent to apply force
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved uttering threats (count 4) including both actus reus and mens rea

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence and applying the applicable legal principles, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of consent for the sexual assault charges (counts 1 and 3), failed to prove intent to apply force for the assault (count 2), and failed to prove the subjective intent to threaten for count 4 despite an objective finding of actus reus; however, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused wilfully caused the death of the family dog (count 12) by intentionally leaving the dog in a known emerging fire and by his incriminating texts, warranting conviction on count 12 and acquittal on counts 1,2,3 and 4 (count 5 previously dismissed by...

Court Disposition

Count 12: Guilty (s.445.1(1)(a)); Counts 1, 2, 3, 4: Not guilty (acquitted); Count 5: Directed verdict/non-suit (acquitted)

Orders

  • Count 12: Conviction under s.445.1(1)(a) recorded
  • Counts 1, 2, 3, 4: Accused acquitted on these counts