R. v. Graves (G.), 2000 NSCA 150

• Judge: Glube, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Oland, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 28, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2000 NSCA 150;(2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 281 (CA)

R. v. Graves (G.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 281 (CA);

 590 A.P.R. 281

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.001

Gary Graves (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(C.A.C. No. 164242; 2000 NSCA 150)

Indexed As: R. v. Graves (G.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Glube, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Oland, JJ.A.

December 28, 2000.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for aggravated assault on the ground that the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision, particularly in respect of his rejection of the defence of self-defence.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Suf­ficiency of - The accused appealed his conviction for aggravated assault on the ground that the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision, particu­larly in respect of his rejection of the defence of self-defence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The victim had no memory of the event - The accused and witnesses (who heard but did not see the incident) gave conflicting testimony - The trial judge's reasons for rejecting self-defence were inadequate - The reasons did not address the issues of credibility or the conflicting evidence - Even if the trial judge rejected the accused's testimony, he should have considered whether on all the evidence a reasonable doubt was raised.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Burns (R.H.) (1994), 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 47 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McMaster (R.H.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Barrett (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 752; 179 N.R. 168; 80 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Haché (A.J.) (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 297; 534 A.P.R. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 76; 222 W.A.C. 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Guyatt (D.E.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 106; 157 W.A.C. 106; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Michael S. Taylor, for the appellant;

James A. Gumpert, Q.C., for the respon­dent.

This appeal was heard on November 22, 2000, before Glube, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Oland, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On December 28, 2000, Glube, C.J.N.S., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.