Case Name:
R. v. Hodgson.
Legal citation: 2024 SCC 25
Facts:
On May 18, 2017, Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Winsor attended a house party in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Mr. Hodgson was asked to assist in removing Mr. Winsor, who refused to leave the home of the party’s host, Crystal Mullin, despite being asked repeatedly. Additionally, Winsor had become intoxicated after consuming cocaine, which served to exacerbate his aggressive behaviour towards Mullin.
In an attempt to restrain him, Hodgson applied a chokehold on Winsor, leading to Winsor’s loss of consciousness and subsequent death despite attempts at resuscitation. Hodgson was charged with second-degree murder under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Code and the lesser included offence of manslaughter under Section 236.
Procedural Process:
The procedural process began with the initial trial at the Nunavut Court of Justice where Hodgson was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter. The trial judge accepted Hodgson’s claim of self-defence, and concluded that the Crown had failed to prove the mens rea for murder. Hodgson did not intend to kill or cause bodily harm to Winsor.
The trial judge also took Winsor's larger body size, cocaine consumption, and an enlarged heart into consideration in determining the cause of death. Given the reasonableness of the chokehold in the circumstances, Hodgson was acquitted of manslaughter.
Trial Judge's Findings:
Mens Rea refers to criminal intent.
Mens Rea: The trial judge found that Hodgson lacked the necessary mens rea for second-degree murder. The trial judge determined that the Crown had failed to establish and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hodgson intended to cause bodily injury that was likely to result in death.
Self-Defence: The trial judge accepted Hodgson’s claim of self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, stating that he reasonably believed he was acting to safeguard himself and others from Winsor's aggression.
Manslaughter: Despite Hodgson's actions resulting in Winsor’s death, the trial judge acquitted him of both second-degree murder and manslaughter, as the Crown was unable to prove that the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Nunavut Court of Appeal
Afterwards, the Crown appealed to the Nunavut Court of Appeal (NUCA), arguing that the trial judge made several errors, particularly in accepting Hodgson’s claim that a chokehold was a “regular ‘calm down’ method” without considering the reckless nature of his actions..
Court of Appeal applied the legal principles governing the mens rea for second-degree murder and the legal framework for self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code. The court evaluated whether the trial judge accurately assessed Hodgson's subjective state of mind, particularly focusing on subjective intent in murder cases, and whether she correctly evaluated his use of a chokehold in the context of self-defence.
NUCA concurred with the Crown’s position, determining that the trial judge had inadequately assessed the inherent danger of a chokehold and failed to contemplate the actions of a reasonable person in similar circumstances, as required under self-defence. As a result, a new trial was ordered.
Supreme Court’s Review:
On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the acquittal was restored. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not commit an error in her evaluation of mens rea or the application of self-defence. Furthermore, the Crown’s appeal did not meet the legal threshold for overturning the acquittal, and the trial judge's analysis of the evidence was legally sound.
The Supreme Court of Canada questioned the soundness of the trial judge's assessment of Hodgson's intent and his assertion of self-defence, and whether the Crown’s argument about the inherent hazard of a chokehold should have influenced the case's outcome.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge’s application of the law was legally sound, reaffirming that the standard for mens rea in murder cases is subjective foresight rather than objective dangerousness.
Reasonings:
The Supreme Court carefully evaluated the trial judge’s findings on mens rea and self-defence. The court upheld that the mens rea for second-degree murder requires subjective intent, not merely the dangerousness of the act (chokehold). It also found that Hodgson acted reasonably under the threat presented by Winsor's aggression, applying Section 34 of the Criminal Code correctly. The court dismissed the Crown's assertion of intrinsic peril and emphasized that prior rulings such as R. v. Khill (2021) confirmed the necessity of evaluating self-defence based on reasonableness in the circumstances.
Holdings and Result:
The Nunavut Court of Appeal’s decision to order a new trial was overturned by the Supreme Court, which reinstated Hodgson’s acquittal. The Supreme Court maintained that the trial judge did not err in her evaluation of Hodgson’s intent or her application of self-defence provisions under the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Nunavut Court of Appeal and reinstated Hodgson's acquittal. Hodgson will not face retrial or further prosecution for second-degree murder or manslaughter, and the Crown's appeal was rejected.
Document with citations can be found here:
Comments