R. v. Twiss (D.R.),

• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Judge: Esson, Southin and Hall, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 YKCA 1
• Citation: 2002 YKCA 1,(2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 52 (YukCA),163 BCAC 52,(2002), 163 BCAC 52 (YukCA),163 B.C.A.C. 52
• Date: 16 November 2001
• Subject Matter: BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS,CRIMINAL LAW

R. v. Twiss (D.R.) (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 52 (YukCA);

    267 W.A.C. 52

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.025

Regina (respondent) v. Douglas Richard Twiss (appellant)

(YU444; 2002 YKCA 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Twiss (D.R.)

Yukon Court of Appeal

Esson, Southin and Hall, JJ.A.

January 14, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was charged with three counts of uttering threats to burn property and kill animals. He was also charged, inter alia, with pointing a firearm (contrary to s. 87(1) of the Criminal Code), and with discharging a firearm with intent to wound (contrary to s. 244(a) of the Code). Three other offences were stayed by the Crown. The accused was convicted by a jury of the above five of­fences. He appealed the convictions.

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In additional reasons reported at paragraphs 23 to 34 below, the court also ruled on a preliminary issue regarding repre­sentation of the accused by an agent who was not a member of the Law Society of the Yukon Territory, although a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Editor's Note: see a related case at [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 186.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 712

Duty to court - Appearances - Appear­ance by "agent" - The Yukon Court of Appeal, without wanting to set a precedent, allowed a lawyer who was a non-member of the Law Society of the Yukon Territory to appear without fee as agent for an accused, where the accused faced impris­onment on a serious charge and did not have the legal knowledge to speak for himself - See paragraphs 23 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 4391.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4370

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding self-defence - The accused was charged with multiple counts of uttering threats and firearms offences - The accused pleaded self-defence to protect himself and others under his protection - He alleged that the jury charge on self-defence was insuffi­cient or defective - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that the trial judge satisfactor­ily outlined the proper considerations under the applicable sections (ss. 34(2), 37 and 41(1) of the Criminal Code) - He properly chose to concentrate on the issue of the accused's subjective state of mind - He permitted defence counsel to refer to case law about the difficulty of measuring force to a nicety - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5450 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions following ques­tions by jury - The accused was charged with multiple counts of uttering threats and firearms offences - The accused pleaded self-defence to protect himself and others under his protection - The jury asked a question as to whether or not in a course of activity a person could act in self-defence at one point in time and not act in self-defence at another point - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that in response, the trial judge correctly pointed out that this was a possible conclusion that a jury might draw from a set of facts and particularly the facts in this case - The judge's response was correct in law - See para­graphs 15 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 5450

Evidence - Witnesses - Testimony re­spect­ing the accused - Character of accused - Jury charge - The accused was charged with multiple counts of uttering threats and firearms offences - The accused pleaded self-defence to protect himself and others under his protection - There was evidence that the accused had expressed animus towards the victims and previously com­plained to police about them and, receiving an unsatisfactory response, left expressing the opinion that he would look after the matter himself - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that there was no need for the trial judge to give the jury a limiting instruction on the possible use by the jury of evidence of criminal propensity by the accused - See paragraph 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Grandin (D.T.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 228; 250 W.A.C. 228; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Kandola (J.S.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 226; 45 W.A.C. 226; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Mattice (J.A.) (1995), 59 B.C.A.C. 1; 98 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Campbell (L.E.) (1998), 101 B.C.A.C. 271; 164 W.A.C. 271; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 44 (C.A.), affd. (1998), 234 N.R. 3; 117 B.C.A.C. 231; 191 W.A.C. 231; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 223 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 14].

Counsel:

S. Goldberg, as agent, for the appellant;

K. Drolet, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Esson, Southin and Hall, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2001. The decision of the court was delivered on January 14, 2002, when the following opinions were filed:

Hall, J.A. (Esson, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 18 to 22;

Esson, Southin and Hall, JJ.A. - see para­graphs 23 to 34.