FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,044 times | Saved to 416 briefcases
R v Sorrell and Bondett, (1978), 41 CCC (2d) 9 132 (Ont CA)


R and B went to store and it was locked. Manager told them it was closed. He saw a gun called the police. Found them later with masks and guns nearby


Can acts that are only equivocal proof of the AR, proof of the AR for an attempt in the absence of unequivocal evidence of an attempt?


In the absence of proof of MR an equivocal act does not satisfy the AR
**Use proximity theory – but it is legitimate to use the evidence of intent to show that the attempt had been made out


There was no clear evidence of intent – not convicted

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.