R. Law

Following guilty pleas to manslaughter and four counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from a series of random attacks, the Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, the evidence did not establish a likelihood of future violence under s. 753(1)(a)(i).

However, the court held that the offender’s conduct showed a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions under s. 753(1)(a)(ii).

The offender was therefore designated a dangerous offender.

Instead of an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a determinate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment followed by a ten‑year long‑term supervision order, concluding there was a reasonable expectation that such a regime would adequately protect the public.

The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of first degree murder following the close of the Crown’s case.

The defence argued there was no evidence capable of establishing planning and deliberation, conceding only that evidence could support second degree murder.

Applying the directed verdict test from United States of America v. Sheppard and R. v. Arcuri, the court considered whether there was any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could infer planning and deliberation.

The court held that circumstantial evidence including motive arising from a prior altercation and threat, potential retrieval of a knife shortly before the attack, absence of a contemporaneous struggle, and the nature of the fatal wound could support such an inference.

The motion was therefore dismissed and the first degree murder charge was left for the jury.