La présence d'une personne sur les lieux peut être, dans certaines circonstances, une façon d'encourager la perpétration de l'infraction, notamment face au poids du nombre

R v Beardy, 2016 MBCA 68

Lien vers la décision

[38]                     Obviously, something more than mere presence and passive acquiescence at the scene of a crime is necessary before someone can be found to be a party to an offence.  Evidence that shows that the accused had knowledge that the offence was going to be committed, and in some way helped or encouraged the offence, can support a finding that he was a party to the offence.  See Dunlop and Sylvester v The Queen, 1979 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1979] 2 SCR 881.  Where there is a lack of clear evidence amounting to aiding or abetting, surrounding circumstances and other factors can still lead the trier of fact to conclude that a party’s presence at the scene of the offence was not innocent, but was for the purpose of aiding or abetting the offence.  These other factors may include:

•        apprehension at the scene;

•        rejection of the accused’s explanation for being there;

•        the particular nature of the offence;

•        the context in which the offence was committed; and

•        other circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Circumstantial evidence can lead to a finding that an alleged party to an offence was not there by accident, but was there with the purpose of aiding or abetting the offence.  See R v Jackson, 2007 SCC 52, [2007] 3 SCR 514.

[39]                     Presence can be a way of encouraging the perpetrators of the unlawful act and preventing the escape of the victim, thus being something more than mere presence and passive acquiescence.  See R v Black and six others, 1970 CanLII 1022 (BC CA), [1970] 4 CCC 251 (BC CA); and R v Mammolita et al (1983), 1983 CanLII 3563 (ON CA), 9 CCC (3d) 85 (Ont CA).  Strength in numbers can, at times, be a source of encouragement.  See R v Snarch (1969), 1969 CanLII 904 (QC CS), 7 DLR (3d) 62 (Qc Sup Ct).