R. v. Downey

R. v. Downey

Applying the statutory elements and authorities, the Crown failed to prove the actus reus of "watching or besetting" under s.264(2)(c) and failed to prove the requisite mens rea for alleged contact/communication breaches of the recognizance; however the Crown established breaches of the recognizance conditions prohibiting possession/use of a cell phone and breaching house arrest on the specified dates; overlapping "keep the peace" charges are conditionally stayed under the Kienapple rule.

Citation
2012 NSPC 74
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Rodan Downey
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court Trial Decision (oral Jan 17, 2012; Written Sept 18, 2012)
Outcome
Mixed: acquitted of criminal harassment (s.264(2)(c)) and acquitted of recognizance contact/communication breaches for June 27 and Aug 17, 2011; convicted of breaches of Recognizance relating to possession/use of a cell phone and breach of house arrest (June 27 and Aug 17, 2011); conditional stay entered on...
Legal Topics
Criminal Harassment S.264, Breach of Recognizance S.145(3), Kienapple Rule, Mens Rea and Actus Reus, Definition of Contact, Watching and Besetting
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Recognizance Law Criminal Procedure Harassment / Stalking Law Criminal Harassment S.264 Breach of Recognizance S.145(3) Kienapple Rule Mens Rea and Actus Reus +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Rodan Downey

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court Trial Decision (oral Jan 17, 2012; Written Sept 18, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown proved criminal harassment contrary to s.264(2)(c) (watching or besetting place of work) between June 1 and Aug 18, 2011
  2. 2 Whether Crown proved breaches of Recognizance dated Aug 12, 2009 contrary to s.145(3) for having contact or communication with Chelsey Owen on June 27 and Aug 17, 2011
  3. 3 Whether Crown proved breaches of Recognizance conditions re: possession/use of cell phone and house arrest exceptions

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the statutory elements and authorities, the Crown failed to prove the actus reus of "watching or besetting" under s.264(2)(c) and failed to prove the requisite mens rea for alleged contact/communication breaches of the recognizance; however the Crown established breaches of the recognizance conditions prohibiting possession/use of a cell phone and breaching house arrest on the specified dates; overlapping "keep the peace" charges are conditionally stayed under the Kienapple rule.

Court Disposition

Mixed: acquitted of criminal harassment (s.264(2)(c)) and acquitted of recognizance contact/communication breaches for June 27 and Aug 17, 2011; convicted of breaches of Recognizance relating to possession/use of a cell phone and breach of house arrest (June 27 and Aug 17, 2011); conditional stay entered on...

Orders

  • Convicted of breaches of Recognizance dated August 12, 2009: possession/use of a cell phone and failure to comply with house arrest on June 27, 2011 and August 17, 2011.
  • Conditional stay of two charges alleging failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour (Kienapple rule) arising from same transaction.