R. v. Walsh, (1991) 107 N.S.R.(2d) 9 (ProvCt)
Judge | Crawford, P.C.J. |
Court | Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada) |
Case Date | March 22, 1991 |
Jurisdiction | Nova Scotia |
Citations | (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 9 (ProvCt) |
R. v. Walsh (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 9 (ProvCt);
290 A.P.R. 9
MLB headnote and full text
Her Majesty The Queen v. Peter Allen Walsh
(Nos. 192617; 192618)
Indexed As: R. v. Walsh
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Crawford, P.C.J.
April 10, 1991.
Summary:
The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon and doing an indecent act to insult or offend, contrary to ss. 90(1) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The Nova Scotia Provincial Court convicted the accused of doing an indecent act, but acquitted him of possession of a prohibited weapon.
Criminal Law - Topic 699.1
Sexual offences - Indecent act with intent to insult or offend - The accused was upset with his mother and a police officer - The accused exposed his genitals and invited them both to "have a suck on it" - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found the accused guilty of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend (Criminal Code, s. 173(1)(b)) - The act was done deliberately with an intent to insult or offend and was more than mere passive nudity - The court distinguished the act from the "mooning" and "streaking" cases - See paragraphs 17 to 22.
Criminal Law - Topic 1142
Prohibited weapons - Intent or mens rea - The accused was found in possession of Nanchuck sticks, a prohibited weapon under Prohibited Weapons Order No. 2 - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused, because the offence of possession of a prohibited weapon under s. 90(1) of the Criminal Code required proof of an intent to use the Nanchuck sticks as a weapon - Mere possession was insufficient to support a conviction - See paragraphs 2 to 16.
Evidence - Topic 2231
Judicial notice - Statutes, statutory orders and regulations - An accused charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (Criminal Code, s. 90(1)) claimed the Crown failed to prove Prohibited Weapons Order No. 2 as required by s. 21 of the Canada Evidence Act - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court rejected the argument, where the court was obliged to take judicial notice of Regulations published in the Canada Gazette and the Order in question was so published - See paragraphs 2 to 4.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Steam Tanker "Evgenia Chandris" (1976), 8 N.R. 338; 12 N.B.R.(2d) 652; 10 A.P.R. 652; 27 C.C.C.(2d) 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Roberts (1990), 99 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 270 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), appld. [para. 5].
R. v. Kilpatrick, 31 C.C.C.(3d) 334 (Ont. D.C.), refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Coleman (1987), 59 C.R.(3d) 85 (Ont. D.C.), refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Doyle (1991), 103 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 282 A.P.R. 89 (C.A.), appld. [para. 9].
R. v. Beaupre (1971), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 320 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].
Statutes Noticed:
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 21 [para. 2].
Criminal Code, Prohibited Weapons Orders, No. 2, SOR/78-277, sect. 2(a) [para. 4].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 2 [para. 5]; sect. 90(1), sect. 173(1)(b) [para. 1].
Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evidence Act.
Prohibited Weapons Orders - see Criminal Code.
Counsel:
Lloyd Tancock, for the Crown;
Del Atwood, for the accused.
This case was heard on March 22, 1991, at Bridgewater, N.S., before Crawford, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 10, 1991.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Muise (R.A.), (1992) 115 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (CoCt)
...11. Criminal Law - Topic 1148 Prohibited weapons - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1142 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Walsh (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 9; 290 A.P.R. 9 (P.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Roberts (1990), 99 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 270 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Kilpat......
-
R. v. Muise (R.A.), (1992) 115 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (CoCt)
...11. Criminal Law - Topic 1148 Prohibited weapons - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1142 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Walsh (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 9; 290 A.P.R. 9 (P.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Roberts (1990), 99 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 270 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Kilpat......