R. v. L.H.B., (2006) 255 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 192 (NLTD)

• Judge: Handrigan, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2006), 255 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 192 (NLTD)

R. v. L.H.B. (2006), 255 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 192 (NLTD);

    768 A.P.R. 192

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. FE.007

Her Majesty the Queen v. L.H.B.

(200506T0055; 2006 NLTD 19)

Indexed As: R. v. L.H.B.

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division

Handrigan, J.

January 30, 2006.

Summary:

The accused pled not guilty to charges of uttering threats and attempting to obstruct justice. In the incident giving rise to the charges, the accused allegedly threatened his daughter, during an interview with two social workers, in an attempt to prevent her from disclosing certain facts.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, found the accused guilty on both charges.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 526

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Obstructing or perverting course of justice - Threatening a witness - The accused was charged with uttering threats and attempting to obstruct justice - While the accused's daughter was being interviewed in a car by two social workers, the accused approached the car and said to his daughter, "you better be careful what you're saying in there" - The accused then drew a handsaw to his throat and moved it horizontally across, twice, in a mock cutting motion - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, convicted the accused of attempting to obstruct justice and uttering threats - The court held that the accused's actions constituted a threat and that because the daughter was a potential witness in a potential judicial proceeding, the threat was an attempt to obstruct justice.

Criminal Law - Topic 1562

Threats - Threat - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 526 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. May (1984), 4 O.A.C. 383; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1984] 2 S.C.R. vii; 56 N.R. 239; 6 O.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 2].

R. v. Hearn and Fahey (1989), 75 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 234 A.P.R. 13; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (Nfld. C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1180; 102 N.R. 130; 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 199; 249 A.P.R. 199; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 352 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote3].

R. v. Wijesinha (W.K.K.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 422; 186 N.R. 169; 85 O.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 410, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

R. v. Gronka (1986), 45 M.V.R. 160 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 5].

R. v. Spezzano (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 87 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 6].

R. v. Whalen (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 217 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 7].

R. v. Walton-Ball and Foster (1982), 17 Sask.R. 37; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 484 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 44 N.R. 148; 18 Sask.R. 177 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 9].

R. v. Wilson (1977), 2 A.R. 351; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 383 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1977), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 383 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 10].

R. v. Hewson (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 126 (Ont. Co. Ct.), affd. (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 407 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

R. v. Thomson (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 175 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 12].

R. v. Stove, [1964] 3 C.C.C. 391; 43 C.R. 419 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Child, Youth and Family Services Act, S.N.L. 1998, c. C-12.1, sect. 17 [para. 36, footnote 14].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 118 [paras. 17, 19]; sect. 139 [paras. 16, 41]; sect. 139(2) [para. 11]; sect. 139(3) [paras. 11, 42]; sect. 264.1 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Patricia Carpenter, for the Crown;

Marcus Evans, for L.H.B.

This matter was heard before Handrigan, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 30, 2006.