R. v. Libon, 2013 BCCA 156 (CanLII)
[32] An additional underpinning of the appellant’s argument is that the clear intent of s. 86(2) is to prevent firearms and ammunition from being stored together in an unsafe manner. In the appellant’s submission, there was no danger because the only reasonable inference is that the operable firearm and ammunition were incompatible. In making that submission the appellant seeks to import an element of intention into the Regulations. That submission was laid to rest in this Court’s decision in R. v. Smillie 1998 CanLII 7050 (BC CA), (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 414, [1998] 111 B.C.A.C. 277 at para. 35:
[35] The offence which we are dealing with in the case at bar does not require negligence as part of the actus reus. The Regulations in question specify particular action, to store handguns in accordance with a certain standard. The offence does not consist of a failure to take reasonable precautions in response to a general duty to take care, it is the failure to store in accordance with the standards dictated by the Regulations which constitutes the offence. The manner of storage is prescribed by statute, not judged by reasonable person standards. For this offence it is irrelevant that the accused has failed to turn his mind to the risk inherent in the careless storage of firearms. Failure to advert to a risk does not form part of the mens rea of this offence. The only duty placed upon the accused is to do what the Regulations require. He cannot avoid his duty by proclaiming that he has found an equally safe, or even better way to store his handguns.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire