R. v. Noble (P.D.J.),

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Suche, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 MBQB 98
• Date: 21 April 2009
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)

R. v. Noble (P.D.J.) (2009), 247 Man.R.(2d) 6 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.026

Her Majesty The Queen v. Patrick Donald Joseph Noble (accused)

(CR 08-01-28918; 2009 MBQB 98)

Indexed As: R. v. Noble (P.D.J.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Suche, J.

April 21, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was charged with uttering threats, criminal harassment, and intimidation of a justice system participant. The complainant was a Crown attorney who had prosecuted the accused on a charge of robbery.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty of the charges of uttering a threat and criminal harassment, and not guilty of the charge of intimidation of a justice system participant.

Criminal Law - Topic 1564

Offences against person and reputation - Threats - Threat to destroy or damage property - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1565 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1565

Offences against person and reputation - Threats - Intention or mens rea - The accused had just arrived at jail after being sentenced on two charges of threatening to kill the complainant, a Crown attorney who had prosecuted him on a charge of robbery - As he was walking through the door to the admitting area, he said to a sheriff's officer, "I guess we know whose house is going to burn down" - When the officer asked what he had just said, the accused replied, "Just kidding", either once or twice, and then laughed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty of uttering threats - The only logical inference to be drawn was that the accused was referring to the complainant's house - With respect to whether the accused intended the threat to be taken seriously, the court considered the immediate circumstances surrounding the comment, namely, that the accused said it seemingly out of the blue, in the absence of any indication that he was angry or upset, and that it was immediately retracted - However, the larger context also had to be considered - The accused's prior threats, his considerable animosity towards the complainant, his knowledge that criminal sanctions flowed from threatening language, and the fact that he had just been sentenced to two years in prison because of his actions towards the complainant were critical parts of that - Given all the circumstances, the court was satisfied that the accused was aware that the threat would be taken seriously - See paragraphs 20 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 1592

Offences against person and reputation - Criminal harassment - Intention or mens rea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1593 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1593

Offences against person and reputation - Criminal harassment - What constitutes - The accused had just arrived at jail after being sentenced on two charges of threatening to kill the complainant, a Crown attorney who had prosecuted him on a charge of robbery - As he was walking through the door to the admitting area, he said to a sheriff's officer, "I guess we know whose house is going to burn down" - When the officer asked what he had just said, the accused replied, "Just kidding", either once or twice, and then laughed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty of a charge of criminal harassment - The complainant was harassed by the comment (she was both troubled and tormented on hearing it) - The comment caused the complainant to be fearful, and her fear, in all the circumstances, was reasonable - As to the required intention, the Crown only had to prove that the accused intended to engage in the conduct and knew, or was reckless to the fact, that the complainant was harassed - The evidence showed that the accused was well aware that the complainant was in a state of fear as a result of all that had happened following his sentencing on the robbery charge, including his threat to kill her - The court therefore found that the accused knew that the complainant would be harassed by the comment, or was reckless as to whether she would be harassed - See paragraphs 37 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 2120.3

Fraudulent transactions - Intimidation - Intimidation of justice system participant - The accused had just arrived at jail after being sentenced on two charges of threatening to kill the complainant, a Crown attorney who had prosecuted him on a charge of robbery - As he was walking through the door to the admitting area, he said to a sheriff's officer, "I guess we know whose house is going to burn down" - When the officer asked what he had just said, the accused replied, "Just kidding", either once or twice, and then laughed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found the accused not guilty of a charge of intimidation of a justice system participant - The mental element of this offence required that the Crown prove that the accused intended not just to cause fear in the complainant, but to do so for the purpose of impeding her in the performance of her duties - The first component (causing fear to the complainant) had been proved - However, the second component had not - The evidence showed that the accused was aware that the complainant was so traumatized by the prior threat and an attempted home invasion that she was unable to work for some period of time - The court stated that "I can easily conclude that he was reckless as to whether the comment in issue would have this same result. However, there is no evidence that he said it for this purpose" - See paragraphs 46 to 51.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47; 1991 CanLII 29, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Clemente (V.F.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758; 168 N.R. 310; 95 Man.R.(2d) 161; 70 W.A.C. 161; 1994 CanLII 49, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Danis, [1993] N.W.T.R. 251 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223; 1985 CanLII 79, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sillipp (E.F.) (1997), 209 A.R. 253; 160 W.A.C. 253; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 384; 1997 CanLII 10865 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Ryback (C.W.) (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 175; 117 W.A.C. 175; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 240; 1996 CanLII 1833 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C.(3d) 181; 1998 CanLII 13048 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Davis (A.A.) (1999), 143 Man.R.(2d) 105; 1999 CanLII 14505 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Johnston, [1995] O.J. No. 3118 (C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 1996 CanLII 157, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 264(1), sect. 264(2)(d) [para. 37]; sect. 264.1(1)(b) [para. 20]; sect. 423.1 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Ashley Finlayson, for the Crown;

Frederick E. Bortoluzzi, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Suche, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on April 21, 2009.