R. v. Paterson, (1980) 5 Sask.R. 283 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Kucey, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1980), 5 Sask.R. 283 (ProvCt)

R. v. Paterson (1980), 5 Sask.R. 283 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Paterson

Indexed As: R. v. Paterson

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kucey, P.C.J.

October 2, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 1783

Offences against property - Possession of breaking instruments - Elements of offence, Criminal Code of Canada, s. 309(1) - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated the elements the Crown must prove in a charge of possession of safe-breaking instruments under suspicious circumstances - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 1784

Offences against property - Possession of breaking instruments - "Suitable" instrument - Meaning of - The accused was charged with possession of an instrument suitable for safebreaking in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument was intended to be used for safe-breaking contrary to s. 309(1) of the Criminal Code - The accused was apprehended in possession of an eight inch punch in suspicious circumstances - The punch was the only instrument in the accused's possession and the Crown did not offer evidence to establish its suitability for safebreaking - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court acquitted the accused - The court held that because it was not common knowledge that a punch alone was an instrument suitable for safe-breaking and the Crown did not offer evidence of suitability; there was no evidence to establish suitability which was an essential element of the offence charged - See paragraphs 19 and 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 1789

Offences against property - Possession of breaking instruments - Evidence and proof - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that once the Crown proves possession of a safebreaking instrument, suitability of the instrument for safe-breaking and suspicious circumstances, the burden shifts to the accused to establish a lawful excuse for possession of the instrument - See paragraph 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kozak and Moore (1975), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 175, appld. [para. 8].

Tupper v. R., [1968] 1 C.C.C. 253, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Garland and Clowe (1978), 19 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 149; 50 A.P.R. 149; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 346, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Robert, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 165, consd. [para. 15].

Re Mackie and The Queen (1979), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 269, consd. [para. 20].

Cochrane v. R., [1978] 2 W.W.R. 384, refd to. [para. 21].

Letellier v. R. (1974), 28 C.R.N.S. 305, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Parker (1978), 5 C.R.(3d) 22, refd to. [para. 21].

St. John v. R. (1974), 28 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Benischek (1963), 39 C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Hayes (1958), 29 C.R. 235, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Tanke (1969), 11 C.R.N.S. 229, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 309(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

B. Stricker, for the Crown;

R. Gebhard, for the accused.

This case was heard by KUCEY, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court.

On October 2, 1980, KUCEY, P.C.J., delivered the following oral judgment.