R. v. Cross (M.) et al., (1993) 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 16 (NFPC)

JudgeLeBlanc, P.C.J.
Case DateJune 03, 1993
JurisdictionNewfoundland and Labrador
Citations(1993), 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 16 (NFPC)

R. v. Cross (M.) (1993), 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 16 (NFPC);

    346 A.P.R. 16

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Melvin Cross and Melvin Anstey

(Nos. 92A2019; 92A1290)

Indexed As: R. v. Cross (M.) et al.

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of Corner Brook

LeBlanc, P.C.J.

June 3, 1993.

Summary:

The accused were charged with hunting with the aid of an artificial light.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court con­victed the accused.

Fish and Game - Topic 1699

Offences - Intent or mens rea - Offences requiring intent - Two accused were charged with hunting with the aid of an artificial light - The Newfoundland Prov­incial Court held the offence was not a strict liability offence as some proof of intent or purpose had to be established - The court stated "[t]he definition of hunt­ing is such that there must be proof of searching for wildlife ... the accused must therefore be shown to have some intent to search for wildlife for the purpose of capturing, injuring or killing wildlife then or at some later time" - See paragraph 21.

Fish and Game - Topic 2409

Hunting offences - With a light - Evi­dence and proof - Wildlife officers observed a spotlight being shone from a vehicle at night over the sides of a forest access road - The officers stopped a pick­up containing the two accused - Inside the truck there was a gun in a partly zipped case, a portable spotlight, a clip and am­munition and an axe - One of the accused had a hunting license for the area - The accused, who said they were in the area to refuel a tractor, admitted to shining the spotlight because they had seen moose tracks and wanted to check if the moose was still there - The Newfoundland Prov­incial Court convicted the accused of hunting with the aid of an artificial light.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collicott (1987), 80 N.B.R.(2d) 369; 202 A.P.R. 369 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 17].

R. v. St. Pierre and Thibault (1983), 45 N.B.R.(2d) 435; 118 A.P.R. 435 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Baptiste (1985), 40 Sask.R. 250 (C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Kelly, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 215 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Larier (1960), 129 C.C.C. 297 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. W-8, sect. 2(f) [para. 14].

Wildlife Act Regulations (Nfld.), sect. 35(1) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Oxford English Dictionary, generally [para. 16].

Counsel:

D. Atwood, for the Crown;

G. Martin, for the accused.

This case was heard before LeBlanc, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, District of Corner Brook, who delivered the following judgment on June 3, 1993.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT