R. v. Hammerbeck (R.K.), (1991) 2 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA)

• Judge: Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 24, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA)

R. v. Hammerbeck (R.K.) (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA);

    5 W.A.C. 123

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. Richard Kevin Hammerbeck (appellant)

(CA011796)

Indexed As: R. v. Hammerbeck (R.K.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A.

September 16, 1991.

Summary:

The accused, a noncustodial parent, was convicted of taking his child from the custodial parent contrary to the provisions of a custody order (Criminal Code, s. 282). The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1451

Abduction of child - General - Section 282 of the Criminal Code made it an offence for a parent to take a child from the other parent contrary to a custody order - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the history of s. 282 and the mens rea required to convict under the section - See paragraphs 10 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 1452

Abduction of child - Intention or mens rea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1451 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1453

Abduction of child - Defences - Mistake - Honest belief - Jury charge - A noncustodial father took his child from its mother believing that the custody order was invalid - He formed this belief following a conversation with an R.C.M.P. officer who refused to enforce the order as requested by the father - He was convicted of child abduction contrary to s. 282 of the Criminal Code - The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial where the trial judge erroneously charged the jury respecting the defence of mistake or honest belief as to whether the custody order was invalid - The court discussed how the jury should have been charged respecting this defence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer (1980), 30 N.R. 181; 14 C.R.(3d) 22 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cook (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 471 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Van Herk (1984), 53 A.R. 239; 40 C.R.(3d) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 14, 17].

R. v. Ilczyszyn (1988), 29 O.A.C. 392; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 91 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 15, 17, 22, 26, 29, 59].

R. v. McDougall (1990), 42 O.A.C. 223 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 16, 17].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 168, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Kundeus, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 272; 5 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 20, 21].

R. v. Metro News (1986), 16 O.A.C. 319; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 335 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [paras. 48, 49, 65].

R. v. Shymkowich, [1954] S.C.R. 606, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Howson (1966), 47 C.R. 322 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 7(3) [para. 20]; sect. 19 [para. 55]; sect. 281 [paras. 45, 46]; sect. 282 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 290, sect. 322 [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (1991), pp. CC-379-380 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Richard Hammerbeck appeared on his own behalf;

   Carol Baird, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on April 24, 1991, before Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on September 16, 1991, including the following opinions:

Locke, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Southin, J.A. (Gibbs, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 33 to 67.