R. v. Greeley (G.), (2001) 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 10 (NFPC)

• Judge: Orr, P.C.J.
• Case Date: March 16, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2001), 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 10 (NFPC)

R. v. Greeley (G.) (2001), 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 10 (NFPC);

    610 A.P.R. 10

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JN.017

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gary Greeley

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

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Orr, P.C.J.

March 16, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with unlawfully killing a dog, contrary to s. 445(a) of the Criminal Code. It was admitted that the accused killed the dog. At issue was whether the killing was justifiable at law.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court found the accused guilty of the charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 2366

Wilful acts respecting property - Killing or injuring animals - Defences - Lawful excuse - The accused's son told him that Roche's dog had knocked him to the ground cutting his head - The accused knocked on Roche's door - He testified that when Roche opened the door the dog thrust his head through the doorway and attacked him - He stated that he grabbed the dog by the throat and was afraid to let go - He forced the dog to the floor, strang­ling it - After a couple of minutes, the dog stopped struggling, but the accused decided to continue strangling it until it died - The accused was charged with unlawfully killing a dog (Criminal Code, s. 445(a)) - The Newfoundland Provincial Court con­victed the accused - The killing was an excessive use of force and was not reason­able or legally justified - While the accused initially had the right to use force against the dog to prevent it from attacking him, having immobilized the dog and the dog having ceased to struggle, he should have stopped his application of force.

Criminal Law - Topic 2366

Wilful acts respecting property - Killing or injuring animals - Defences - Lawful excuse - The Newfoundland Provincial Court stated that "an individual has the right to shoot or otherwise destroy a law­fully owned dog in the face of an attack by that dog on either himself or his property. Once the attack has stopped and there is no reasonable possibility that it will resume the right to kill the dog no longer exists. The caveat on this right to kill is that the killing must be the only practicable way to prevent this attack and the killing must be done in such a manner as to spare the dog any unnecessary suffering. In addition to these common law principles notwithstand­ing that the self defence provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 34-37) are not literally applicable to dog attack (at least in relation to the dog) in certain circumstances the defence of dwelling and defence of prop­erty provisions will apply" - See paragraph 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barr (1982), 49 A.R. 342; 1 C.C.C.(3d) 47 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Menard (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 458 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Clouter (1990), 86 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 268 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld. T.D.), dist. [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 1, p. 689 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Ruth Wakeham, for the Crown;

Doug Harvey, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Orr, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 16, 2001.