The High Court also clarified the rule that a Crown’s ability to appeal an acquittal must be limited to a question of law and not involve evaluating the evidence.
On July 12, the Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons for its Feb. 15 unanimous decision to back a trial judge’s acquittal of Daniel Hodgson, who in 2017 was charged with second-degree murder after he ended up killing another man during a fight at a house party in Nunavut’s capital, Iqaluit.
At the heart of R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25, sat three issues: Hodgson’s state of mind during the incident, the elements required for self-defence and the circumstances in which a Crown prosecutor can appeal an acquittal.
It was during the evening of May 17, 2017, that Hodgson, 38 at the time, attended a friend’s house party. Also in attendance was Bradley Winsor, 23. (The court notes that the two men had no previous relationship.)
As the night wore on, Winsor became increasingly drunk, did cocaine, grew increasingly disruptive and made unwanted advances towards the party’s female host.
Eventually, Winsor ended up in a skirmish with another man — partly over Winsor’s behaviour and partly over a demand that the intoxicated Winsor hand over his car keys.
Eventually, Winsor was asked to leave, but he did not.
Hodgson, who had fallen asleep in a nearby bedroom, was roused and asked for help in dealing with Winsor. Despite already having an injured “dominant” hand, Hodgson entered into the fray.
After seeing Winsor make a fist, Hodgson attempted to pull him to the ground by grabbing him from behind. Winsor responded by elbowing Hodgson in the head, at which point Hodgson applied the chokehold. The two men struggled and fell to the floor.
Other people in the room shouted for Hodgson to let go after it was clear the fight was over. But Hodgson kept hold, and Winsor turned blue in the face. Another man then pulled Hodgson off Winsor, who had been rendered unconscious.
Despite being given CPR by two other partygoers, Winsor died.
At trial, Hodgson argued that he acted in self-defence, that he did not think the chokehold was dangerous and that he never intended to kill Winsor.
While the trial judge found Hodgson had, indeed, caused Winsor’s death with the chokehold, she found the Crown failed to establish the mens rea — the “guilty mind” aspect needed for Hodgson’s murder conviction.
She also deemed Hodgson not guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, finding that his self-defence argument had an “air of reality” and that the Crown failed to prove that the chokehold was not reasonable in the circumstances.
In other words, she had reasonable doubt that Hodgson set out to kill Winsor.
The Crown turned to Nunavut’s Court of Appeal, which found the trial judge to have erred in her analysis of the mens rea as well as in her assessment of self-defence.
But the Supreme Court disagreed with the appeal court’s findings and restored Hodgson’s acquittal.
Justice Sheilah Martin
A murder conviction must involve “subjective foresight,” found Justices Martin and Moreau.
“A conviction for murder requires subjective intent because it is an offence that ‘carries with it the most severe stigma and punishment of any crime in our society.’ The law requires subjective foresight of death because the criminal liability for murder is of the highest kind and cannot be justified except where the actor possesses a culpable mental state in respect of that result.”
Justice Mary Moreau
As for self-defence, the High Court found the trial judge “followed the framework for self-defence as set out in the Criminal Code, specifically addressed each of its … elements, correctly stated the applicable statutory principles, applied them to the facts as found, and expressed clear conclusions on each element.”
Then there was the matter of the Crown appealing Hodgson’s acquittal.
The Supreme Court noted that Crowns are limited to questions of law alone — and are not to involve the evaluation of evidence — when seeking to appeal an acquittal. In this case, the court found, Nunavut’s Court of Appeal did not specify precise errors of law and could not have done so without questioning the evaluation of the evidence.
Justices Martin and Moreau found that “expanding the Crown’s right of appeal beyond its proper scope would have a profound impact on the interests of accused persons, especially due to the considerable anxiety created by the prospect of a new trial after a person has been acquitted.”
“Allowing the Crown’s restricted right of appeal to expand beyond its scope would undermine the … protection against wrongful convictions and double jeopardy” — the latter of which being when an accused person ends up tried twice for the same offence.
Toronto’s Micheal Lacy, one of two lawyers acting for Hodgson at the Supreme Court, hearkened back to Feb. 15, when the Supreme Court made its oral decision.
“That was an important day for our client, bringing an end to the criminal case against him,” said Lacy. “It was an unequivocal vindication. With the release of today’s reasons for judgment, the trial judge was vindicated. As the Court made clear, the trial justice did not commit the legal errors that were implicitly attributed to her by the Nunavut Court of Appeal.”
Lacy also said the Supreme Court’s decision also has “precedential value” in that it “confirms the limited basis upon which Crowns can appeal acquittals” and drives home the “need for appellate Courts to clearly identify and articulate any alleged error of law alone.”
A request for comment from Crown Julie Laborde was not immediately available.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Terry Davidson at t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5899.