Swarming

petros
+1
#61
You cant google R. v. McQuaid yourself?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

That is in the case I referenced.

Yes, I understood, and thanked you for that.

I'm just trying to point out that the pair of you are fighting over the subtle difference between zero and nothing.

I mean, if you're just measuring dicks, have at it. But gerryh is correct in the strict language of the statute, and you are correct that judges can, and do, interpret that language.

I'm not sure about the "as a matter of law" part in the case you cite. "As a matter of law" in this sense means "done and dusted," you don't need to prove that in THIS CASE, multiple attackers "endangered the life" of the victim, but rather that in all cases where there are multiple attackers, it is conclusively presumed in every case that they "endangered the life" of the victim.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You cant google R. v. McQuaid yourself?

Whoever this "R." guy is, he sues more folks than Trump!

And you call US litigious!
 
petros
+1
#64
No. Gerryh is confused. He got hung up on a subsection the judge ruled as irrelevant.
 
petros
+1
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Whoever this "R." guy is, he sues more folks than Trump!
And you call US litigious!

Rex everything.
 
gerryh
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You cant google R. v. McQuaid yourself?

https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/19792
"Six accused faced five counts of aggravated assault. All six were charged with aggravated assault of the primary victim by kicking and beating him and preventing his escape; two were charged with aggravated assault of a second victim, and two were charged with aggravated assault of a third victim. The Crown witness's first-hand evidence about the assaults was supported materially by other evidence. At a celebratory fraternity party attended by all six of the accused, a pregnant woman and the alleged father of her child ended up in a physical fight on the street outside the fraternity house. The third victim attempted to intervene and help the woman and was assaulted and wounded by one of the accused and struck by two other accused. The second victim tried to intervene verbally in the dispute between the couple, and was assaulted by two of the accused. His injuries rendered him unable to come to the aid of the other victims. The primary victim went to the aid of the second victim and was surrounded in a circle by all the accused (including the Crown witness).The primary victim had done nothing to provoke his attackers but was knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly in the head. As a result he suffered life-threatening injuries and permanent brain damage. One of the accused fled across the road and was followed by the remaining accused. Subsequent flight from the police was seen as further evidence of the consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused.The trial judge accepted the evidence presented by the Crown as having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. All six accused were guilty of all 27 counts in the Indictment. The Crown witness was not pressured or manipulated into providing a statement to police, and racism was not a motivating factor in the attacks."
What is bolded would have been the reason for aggravated assault charges.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/do...anlii5424.html
Here is the actual court documents, nowhere is it mentioned that the charges of aggravated assault was the result of multiple perpetrators, on the contrary, the judge specifically cites 268 and the definition within.
Also, the small section the you cut and pasted does not discount s21(1) but does the exact opposite.

 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#67
Yes, very good. This is the difference between "as a matter of law" and this case. Here, it looks like the aggravated assault came in because the attack did, as a matter of fact, endanger the life of the victim. Contrast the OP case, where it specifies that the victim's injuries were not life-threatening.

The judge may still have held that multiple attackers are aggravated assault as a matter of law, I'd have to read the whole case, but the judge could also have simply held that the facts of this case, viewed in isolation, constituted aggravated assault because the assault endangered the life of the victim.
 
gerryh
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yes, very good. This is the difference between "as a matter of law" and this case. Here, it looks like the aggravated assault came in because the attack did, as a matter of fact, endanger the life of the victim. Contrast the OP case, where it specifies that the victim's injuries were not life-threatening.
The judge may still have held that multiple attackers are aggravated assault as a matter of law, I'd have to read the whole case, but the judge could also have simply held that the facts of this case, viewed in isolation, constituted aggravated assault because the assault endangered the life of the victim.


The assault in the op just happened, and it has not been released what exact charges have been laid. Any mention of specific charges has been speculation only.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

The assault in the op just happened, and it has not been released what exact charges have been laid. Any mention of specific charges has been speculation only.

Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just saying that the facts reported in the OP said non-life threatening injuries.

From the link in the OP:

"When they arrived, police found a 47-year-old man with non-life threatening injuries. He was treated by EMS."

That, of course, is merely journalism, not evidence.

What the Crown may do is in the hands of the Crown.
 
petros
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/19792
"Six accused faced five counts of aggravated assault. All six were charged with aggravated assault of the primary victim by kicking and beating him and preventing his escape; two were charged with aggravated assault of a second victim, and two were charged with aggravated assault of a third victim. The Crown witness's first-hand evidence about the assaults was supported materially by other evidence. At a celebratory fraternity party attended by all six of the accused, a pregnant woman and the alleged father of her child ended up in a physical fight on the street outside the fraternity house. The third victim attempted to intervene and help the woman and was assaulted and wounded by one of the accused and struck by two other accused. The second victim tried to intervene verbally in the dispute between the couple, and was assaulted by two of the accused. His injuries rendered him unable to come to the aid of the other victims. The primary victim went to the aid of the second victim and was surrounded in a circle by all the accused (including the Crown witness).The primary victim had done nothing to provoke his attackers but was knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly in the head. As a result he suffered life-threatening injuries and permanent brain damage. One of the accused fled across the road and was followed by the remaining accused. Subsequent flight from the police was seen as further evidence of the consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused.The trial judge accepted the evidence presented by the Crown as having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. All six accused were guilty of all 27 counts in the Indictment. The Crown witness was not pressured or manipulated into providing a statement to police, and racism was not a motivating factor in the attacks."
What is bolded would have been the reason for aggravated assault charges.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/do...anlii5424.html
Here is the actual court documents, nowhere is it mentioned that the charges of aggravated assault was the result of multiple perpetrators, on the contrary, the judge specifically cites 268 and the definition within.
Also, the small section the you cut and pasted does not discount s21(1) but does the exact opposite.

Read again


I am satisfied the men in the circle were all there for the same reasons: to kick or beat Darren Watts; or help in administering the beating; or encourage it; or stand -- as observed by others -- shoulder to shoulder so as to form a circle thereby ensnaring Darren Watts and preventing him from getting away or stopping others from coming to his rescue.
 
petros
+1
#71
It was the encircling.

He appealed for a 267 but the Judge said "no f-cking way" and upheld 268 not because he was boot f-cking him but because he was part of the circle.
Last edited by petros; Jun 25th, 2020 at 08:36 PM..
 
gerryh
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It was the encircling.
He appealed for a 267 but the Judge said "no f-cking way" and upheld 268.


Whatever