R. v. Selig

R. v. Selig

Charge wording amended to remove the knowledge element so it proceeded under s.91(2); Crown proved the weapon was a firearm (intact firing mechanism and trigger demonstration) and, on circumstantial evidence (proximity in time and place, rarity of firearms in town, and lack of alternative explanations), proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the handgun; conviction entered under s.91(2).

Citation
2002 NSPC 10
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Thomas Alvin Selig
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (guilty Finding)
Outcome
Guilty on count of possession of a restricted weapon contrary to s.91(2) Criminal Code (as amended); guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on each of two victims
Legal Topics
Possession of a Restricted Weapon, Elements of Offence, Circumstantial Evidence, Charge Amendment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Firearms/weapons Law Evidence Possession of a Restricted Weapon Elements of Offence Circumstantial Evidence Charge Amendment

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Thomas Alvin Selig

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (guilty Finding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the weapon was a firearm capable of being fired
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had possession of the firearm
  3. 3 Whether the charge wording matched the statutory element (s.91(2) vs s.92(2))

Ratio Decidendi

Charge wording amended to remove the knowledge element so it proceeded under s.91(2); Crown proved the weapon was a firearm (intact firing mechanism and trigger demonstration) and, on circumstantial evidence (proximity in time and place, rarity of firearms in town, and lack of alternative explanations), proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the handgun; conviction entered under s.91(2).

Court Disposition

Guilty on count of possession of a restricted weapon contrary to s.91(2) Criminal Code (as amended); guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on each of two victims

Orders

  • Found guilty of possession of a restricted weapon contrary to s.91(2) Criminal Code (as amended)
  • Found guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on each of Peter Walsh and Shawn Day