The accused was tried on charges of robbery, assault causing bodily harm with a hammer, uttering a death threat, and two probation breaches.
The court rejected the accused's evidence under the W. (D.) framework, accepted the complainant's detailed and compelling account, and found the Crown had proven the hammer assault and related probation breaches beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court was not satisfied that the loan transaction and subsequent violence established the specific intent required for robbery.
On the threatening call allegation, the court found the evidence proved a threat to cause bodily harm, but not a threat to cause death.
