R. v. Holmes

R. v. Holmes

The trial judge did not err: mens rea was a question of fact and the proven facts (distinctive car, repeated slow passes, running onto the street) supported an inference of recklessness; the appellant's disguise argument was properly rejected and the conviction for criminal harassment is upheld.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 ONCA 604
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Jeffrey Scott Holmes
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Criminal Harassment, Mens Rea, Recklessness, Wilful Blindness, Appeal From Conviction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Criminal Harassment Mens Rea Recklessness Wilful Blindness Appeal From Conviction

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

Jeffrey Scott Holmes

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal Decision)

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea for criminal harassment
  2. 2 Whether use of a hat and sunglasses constituted a disguise negating knowledge or recklessness
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in drawing adverse inferences from the appellant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err: mens rea was a question of fact and the proven facts (distinctive car, repeated slow passes, running onto the street) supported an inference of recklessness; the appellant's disguise argument was properly rejected and the conviction for criminal harassment is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.