Rechercher sur ce blogue

lundi 4 août 2025

Sommaire des éléments constitutifs de l'infraction de port d’arme dans un dessein dangereux

R. v Jackson-Bullshields, 2017 BCSC 1159 

Lien vers la décision


[48]        In R. v. Welsh2012 ABPC 177 at paras. 135-138, the Court provided the following summary of the elements of a s. 88(1) offence:

Possession for A Purpose Dangerous

[135]   Section 88 contains two offences: possession or carrying a weapon for a purpose of committing an offence or possession or carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The offence under consideration here is the latter. The Crown is required to prove the following pursuant to the section:  (1) that the accused possessed a weapon and (2) that the purpose of the possession was one dangerous to the public peace: R. v. Cassidy, 1989 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 345 (SCC) at p. 351; R. v. Kerr, 2004 SCC 44, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371 (SCC) (Kerr) at para. 23.

[136]   Weapon is defined in s. 2 of the Code. The definition includes something that is used as a weapon. In these circumstances the knife was used as a weapon to inflict injury.

[137]   Possession is defined in s. 4(3). This includes anything that is in the accused’s personal possession. Here, the accused had the weapon in his personal possession.

[138]   The focus of s. 88 is upon the purpose for the accused’s possession. The Crown must prove that he possessed a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The circumstances of each case must be examined to determine whether the accused had the weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. Proof may be supplied by the manner in which the weapon is used, circumstances and statements surrounding its use and the rational inferences to be drawn from proven facts: R. v. Chalifoux (1974), 1973 CanLII 1355 (BC CA), 14 C.C.C. (2d) 526 (B.C.C.A.) (Chalifoux) at p. 529.

Aucun commentaire:

Publier un commentaire

Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine

Le simple passage du temps ne rend pas automatiquement une information périmée, car sa pertinence doit être évaluée de manière contextuelle en tenant compte notamment de la nature continue des activités criminelles visées

R. v. James, 2019 ONCA 288 Lien vers la décision [ 55 ] There is no rule as to how recent information has to be in order to be relevant: R. ...