In this criminal trial on a charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code, the central issue was whether the accused possessed a concealed machete for a peaceful purpose or for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
The defence argued a culinary purpose tied to purchasing coconuts and sugar cane and submitted the machete was swung once in self-defence after an unprovoked punch.
The court accepted the independent civilian and police evidence, rejected key parts of the accused’s testimony as implausible and unreliable, and found the post-incident handling of the machete supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.
Applying the governing framework for s. 88 offences and the proportionality analysis under s. 34 self-defence principles, the court concluded the possession was for an offensive dangerous purpose.
The accused was convicted.
