R. v. Thackery

R. v. Thackery

The court held s.170(A)(2) of the MVA applies only to 'highway' as defined in s.2(u); the parkade was private property not designed for and intended to be accessible to the general public, so no MVA offence occurred there. Although the officer honestly and reasonably believed the MVA applied, that belief was a mistake of law; under Biron/Stevens an arrest based on such a mistake did not establish the officer found the accused apparently committing an offence, rendering the arrest unlawful and the officers not acting in the execution of their duty; resisting an unlawful arrest cannot support a conviction, so the accused was acquitted.

Citation
2012 NSPC 111
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dennis Scott Thackery
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (summary Offence Resisting Arrest) / Trial Judgment Acquittal
Outcome
Acquitted - accused found not guilty of resisting arrest
Legal Topics
Resisting Arrest, Lawful Arrest, Scope of Motor Vehicle Act S.170(a)(2), Definition of Highway, S.495 Criminal Code, S.261 Motor Vehicle Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Motor Vehicle Law Police Powers and Arrest Resisting Arrest Lawful Arrest Scope of Motor Vehicle Act S.170(a)(2) Definition of Highway +2 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Dennis Scott Thackery

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (summary Offence Resisting Arrest) / Trial Judgment Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.170(A)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act applies outside a highway
  2. 2 Whether the parkade falls within the MVA definition of 'highway'
  3. 3 Whether the arrest was lawful and whether the accused wilfully resisted arrest

Ratio Decidendi

The court held s.170(A)(2) of the MVA applies only to 'highway' as defined in s.2(u); the parkade was private property not designed for and intended to be accessible to the general public, so no MVA offence occurred there. Although the officer honestly and reasonably believed the MVA applied, that belief was a mistake of law; under Biron/Stevens an arrest based on such a mistake did not establish the officer found the accused apparently committing an offence, rendering the arrest unlawful and the officers not acting in the execution of their duty; resisting an unlawful arrest cannot support a conviction, so the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted - accused found not guilty of resisting arrest