R. v. Rent

R. v. Rent

Given the trial judge's findings that the appellant was attacked and acted in self-defence, and because the Crown failed to prove the dangerous purpose (the judge erred by appearing to place the burden on the accused), the conviction could not stand; the appeal is allowed and an acquittal entered.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C30398
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Glen Andrew Rent
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Carrying a Weapon, Public Peace, Burden of Proof, Acquittal
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Self Defence Carrying a Weapon Public Peace Burden of Proof Acquittal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Glen Andrew Rent

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal for Ontario)

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved that the knife was a weapon carried for a purpose dangerous to the public peace
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge improperly placed an onus on the accused to prove a lawful excuse
  3. 3 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence given acquittal on related assault charge

Ratio Decidendi

Given the trial judge's findings that the appellant was attacked and acted in self-defence, and because the Crown failed to prove the dangerous purpose (the judge erred by appearing to place the burden on the accused), the conviction could not stand; the appeal is allowed and an acquittal entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction set aside