Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

                                 Citation: R. v. Graves, 2002 NSCA 157

 

                                                                                                     Date: 20021204

                                                                                             Docket: CAC 177355

                                                                                                   Registry:  Halifax

 

 

Between:

                                                 Gary Hugh Graves

Appellant

                                                             v.

 

                                              Her Majesty the Queen

 

                                                                                                          Respondent

 

 

Judges:                           Roscoe, Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A.

 

Appeal Heard:                December 4, 2002, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Written Judgment:         December 5, 2002

 

Held:                              Appeal allowed, conviction set aside and a new trial ordered per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Roscoe and Cromwell, JJ.A.

 

Counsel:                         Shannon L. Ingraham, for the appellant

Laurel Halfpenny-MacQuarrie, for the respondent

 


Reasons for judgment:

 

[1]              This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Robert White of the Provincial Court wherein he found Gary Hugh Graves guilty of aggravated assault contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46,  and sentenced him to a five year term of incarceration.

 

[2]              We are unanimously of the view that the trial judge misplaced the burden of proof.  The Crown must satisfy the trier of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was not acting in self defence. The decision reveals, most notably at paragraphs [59], [62] and [63], that the trial judge failed to appreciate that the accused was not required to affirmatively establish self defence.

 

[3]              Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial is ordered.

 

 

Bateman, J.A.

Concurred in:

Roscoe, J.A.

Cromwell, J.A.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.