R. v. Obey (M.F.), (2014) 437 Sask.R. 36 (PC)

• Judge: Tomkins, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 437 Sask.R. 36 (PC);2014 SKPC 15

R. v. Obey (M.F.) (2014), 437 Sask.R. 36 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.017

Her Majesty the Queen v. Marvin Frederick Obey

(Information No. 24484253; 2014 SKPC 15)

Indexed As: R. v. Obey (M.F.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Tomkins, P.C.J.

January 29, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon. The Crown applied pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the accused for assessment by experts to be used in an application to declare him a long-term or dangerous offender.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court granted the order.

Criminal Law - Topic 6509

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Remands (incl. for expert assessment) - Obey resided with his common law partner (Tanya), Tanya's daughter (Celeste) and Tanya's brother (Arthur) - One evening while he was intoxicated, Obey and Tanya argued - Celeste intervened - Arthur came out of his bedroom and saw Obey with his fist raised to Celeste - Arthur challenged Obey - Obey had a knife in his hand - He took a swing at Arthur, but at some point during the swing decided against striking Arthur and conducted himself in some manner so as to prevent contact - Obey was convicted of assault with a weapon - Obey was now 34 years old - Between 1994 and 2013, he had amassed 46 prior convictions, including 14 for violence - There was no significant gap in his record - The victims of his violent offences involved family members and women with whom he was in a relationship - The Crown applied under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for an order remanding Obey for assessment by experts to be used in an application to declare him a long-term or dangerous offender - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court granted the order - The court accepted that Obey abandoned his intention to strike Arthur before completing the swing - However, for a period of time during the swing, he did intend to strike Arthur - This went beyond menacing or threatening and showed that Obey committed an act where violence was attempted - It therefore met the definition of a "serious personal injury offence" in s. 752(a)(i) - It also met the s. 752(a)(ii) definition of that term, since Obey's conduct endangered or was likely to endanger other persons - Obey was agitated, angry and intoxicated - He swung from an awkward, backhand angle - There was a real risk that Obey would not be able to control his actions with nicety, and even once his intention was abandoned, it was as likely as not that he might have made contact with Arthur - Given Obey's record and his continued offending, it was clearly within the realm of possibility that he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

Criminal Law - Topic 6560

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention - Protection of the public - Personal injury offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6509 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Roy (D.W.) (2008), 307 Sask.R. 276; 417 W.A.C. 276; 2008 SKCA 41, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 2].

R. v. Simpson (M.R.) (2013), 417 Sask.R. 258; 580 W.A.C. 258; 2013 SKCA 83, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 3].

R. v. Ben (B.) (2011), 374 Sask.R. 165; 2011 SKPC 80, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 4].

R. v. Otter (C.G.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 557; 2010 ABPC 218, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 5].

R. v. Wright (M.G.), [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 160; 2007 CarswellSask 871; 2007 SKQB 350, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Fulton (C.J.) (2006), 289 Sask.R. 98; 382 W.A.C. 98; 2006 SKCA 115, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 7].

R. v. Peters (A.T.) (2011), 373 Sask.R. 22; 2011 SKQB 2, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 8].

Counsel:

Roger DeCorby, for the Crown;

Andrew Hitchcock, for the accused.

This application was heard at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, before Tomkins, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on January 29, 2014.