R. v. Chadwick

R. v. Chadwick

Because the trial judge rejected the only evidence that the reel was thrown, there was no evidence to support the judge's finding that the appellant moved the hose and reel toward the complainant; the verdict was unreasonable and an error in law, so the appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C42578
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: James Chadwick
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Summary Conviction Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to Court of Appeal (on Appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Conviction, Acquittal, Evidence Sufficiency, Reasonableness of Verdict
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Appeal Conviction Acquittal Evidence Sufficiency Reasonableness of Verdict

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

James Chadwick

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Conviction Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to Court of Appeal (on Appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court)

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the verdict was unreasonable and an error in law

Ratio Decidendi

Because the trial judge rejected the only evidence that the reel was thrown, there was no evidence to support the judge's finding that the appellant moved the hose and reel toward the complainant; the verdict was unreasonable and an error in law, so the appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal entered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; acquittal entered.