Yep, I got it. Thanks.He asked what made it aggravate assault over a minor assault. That is the answer shithead.
Anything else you need help in grasping?
Of course. I'm going to assume until told otherwise that your Crown, like our prosecutors, have considerable discretion in what to charge.Whether these idiots stand in Provincial Court Summary conviction of 2yrs less a day or less in jail or Indictable Conviction in Court of Queens Bench for possible 2yrs+ in prison remains to be seen.
No dumbfu-ck, if you'd have asked you could have saved yourself from wearing shit on your face.
What happened in that case was an upgrade from from a charge of Sect 267 Assault Causing Bodily Harm to Sect 268 of Aggrevated Assault.
Of course. I'm going to assume until told otherwise that your Crown, like our prosecutors, have considerable discretion in what to charge.
Do you have plea bargaining? Where the Crown says "if you'll plead guilty to a lesser charge, we'll forgo hitting you with the greater charge"?
I ask because some systems, especially France, don't have it. The French lawyers I've spoken to considered it immoral and shocking.
What dont you understand? The judge's ruling that set the standard? Or that Clayton's lawyer was bucking for Section 267 but got hit with 268 because he was part of the group that hemmed the victim in making it Aggravated or the judge declaring subsection 21.1 meaningless in this case?Applicable law you quoted above. No mention of multiple perps as being a reason for the offence.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-57.html#docCont
That is in the case I referenced.This appears to be the key language:
Aggravated assault
268 (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
I see it as entirely possible you and petros are both right. I can very easily see a court ruling that multiple attackers, as a matter of law, "endangers the life" of the victim, even when, as here according to the report, no life-threatening injury was sustained.
An example of what makes it an aggravated assault.
R. v. McQuaid,[23] while it was not required to base culpability on subsection 21(1), the trial judge explicitly stated that he would have done so if necessary, writing,
While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these 6 accused on all counts based on the testimony of their accomplice, Danny Clayton, were it necessary, I would also be prepared to say that each of the accused and Danny Clayton were parties to the aggravated assault of Darren Watts as charged on the Indictment, within the meaning of s. 21(1). 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.
What dont you understand? The judge's ruling that set the standard? Or that Clayton's lawyer was bucking for Section 267 but got hit with 268 because he was part of the group that hemmed the victim in making it Aggravated or the judge declaring subsection 21.1 meaningless in this case?
Did you take the two Asparin 81 yet?
Yeah you're right gerryh, I wrote that. Pulled it out my ass.
Yes, I understood, and thanked you for that.That is in the case I referenced.
Whoever this "R." guy is, he sues more folks than Trump!You cant google R. v. McQuaid yourself?