The accused was charged with obstructing police and assaulting a police officer in resisting the arrest of her son.
The Crown alleged the accused physically interfered with an officer's lawful arrest of her son for armed robbery.
The defence argued the arrest was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds.
The court found that while the officer held a subjective belief in reasonable and probable grounds, the objective review revealed non-inculpatory factors (presence of an accompanying adult, appropriate behaviour of the suspect, unknown duration of association) that were not considered.
The court concluded the arrest was unlawful and therefore the officer was not engaged in lawful execution of duty.
The accused was acquitted of both charges, and the court found her actions constituted lawful defence of her son under section 34 of the Criminal Code.
