R. v. Jewer (C.M.), (2015) 369 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 16, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 369 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1314

R. v. Jewer (C.M.) (2015), 369 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLPC);

    1150 A.P.R. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JL.032

Her Majesty the Queen v. Clark Murdock Jewer

(2015 NLPC 1314A00175)

Indexed As: R. v. Jewer (C.M.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

July 20, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault, uttering a threat and causing a disturbance. At trial, he conceded that the Crown had proven the assault, but not the manner in which it was committed, and the threat.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of causing a disturbance. The assault consisted of the accused shoving the victim, rather than punching him.

Criminal Law - Topic 751

Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Disorderly conduct - Causing a public disturbance - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court discussed the elements of the offence of causing a disturbance, concluding, "the actus reus of the offence ... consists of fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language in a public place which causes a disturbance. A disturbance consists of a 'disturbance of the public peace, in the sense of interference with the ordinary and customary use of the premises by the public.' The mens rea element of the offence consists of intentionally committing one of the enumerated acts. The Crown does not have to prove that the accused intended to cause a disturbance, but the disturbance must be one would have been 'reasonably ... foreseen in the particular circumstances of time and place.'" - See paragraphs 42 to 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 751

Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Disorderly conduct - Causing a public disturbance - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of causing a disturbance - On the evening in question, the accused was drunk in a bar - He was singing loudly, but this did not seem to disturb anyone - His voice was raised and he was shouting, but his voice was no louder than the music that was being played - A fight broke out between the accused and another person - After the accused pushed the other person, the accused's participation in the fight consisted of "being a punching/kicking bag" - Though one could cause a disturbance by fighting, the accused did not do so - The accused's push "did not interfere with the ordinary and customary use of the bar by the public" - After that, he had not fought - While the sight of the accused receiving a beating might have been upsetting, it did not cause a disturbance - See paragraphs 52 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Angelillo (G.) (2006), 355 N.R. 226; 214 C.C.C.(3d) 309 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (2012), 318 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64; 989 A.P.R. 64; 2012 NLCA 11, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. J.K. (2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 53; 1138 A.P.R. 53; 2015 NLCA 14, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. J.M.H. (2011), 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ahmed (O.), [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 381; 2013 ONCA 473, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. S.T. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 22; 638 W.A.C. 22; 2015 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. M.D.R., [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 283; 2015 ONCA 323, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Gyimah (A.), [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Butt (W.J.) (2010), 296 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 230; 915 A.P.R. 230 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Clouthier, [1975] N.S.J. No. 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Humby, [2004] N.J. No. 216 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lohnes, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 167; 132 N.R. 297; 109 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 297 A.P.R. 145, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. D.R. (1999), 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 200; 544 A.P.R. 200 (Nlfd. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Kerr (J.R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371; 322 N.R. 91; 354 A.R. 114; 329 W.A.C. 114; 2004 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Kukemueller (J.) (2014), 319 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. J.G.V.B. (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 391; 643 A.P.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Swinkels (B.P.) (2010), 273 O.A.C. 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

K. Pike, for Her Majesty the Queen;

G. Kearney, Q.C., for Mr. Jewer.

This case was heard at Stephenville, N.L., on July 16, 2015, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 20, 2015.