R. v. Ritter (M.P.), (2007) 422 A.R. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Côté, Berger and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 31, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 422 A.R. 1 (CA);2007 ABCA 395

R. v. Ritter (M.P.) (2007), 422 A.R. 1 (CA);

      415 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. DE.033

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Michael Peter Ritter (appellant)

(0603-0227-A; 2007 ABCA 395)

Indexed As: R. v. Ritter (M.P.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Berger and Watson, JJ.A.

December 10, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged that between October 28, 2003 and November 25, 2005, while being at large on a recognizance with a condition that he surrender all his passports and not apply for any passports without leave of the court, he failed to comply with that condition, without lawful excuse, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported 421 A.R. 310 convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 6775

Recognizances and undertakings - Recognizance of bail - Breach - Mens rea - The accused was charged that between October 28, 2003 and November 25, 2005, while being at large on a recognizance with a condition that he surrender all his passports and not apply for any passports without leave of the court, he failed to comply with that condition, without lawful excuse, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code - Although the accused turned in his Canadian passport, he did not turn in his Belizean passport, and applied for and received a new Belizean passport in his new name without seeking leave of the court - The accused claimed that he lacked the necessary mens rea to sustain a conviction - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the test for mens rea for this offence and held that the accused had the requisite intent to sustain a conviction - The court rejected the defence of due diligence and officially induced error - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted the requisite mens rea and reached an erroneous conclusion as to mens rea having regard to the evidence - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 145(3) [para. 1].

Counsel:

S.D. Hughson, Q.C., for the respondent;

R.H. Davidson, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2007, before Côté, Berger and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on December 10, 2007, and filed in Edmonton, Alberta.