FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,503 times | Saved to 313 briefcases
R v Sorrell and Bondett, (1978), 41 CCC (2d) 9 132 (Ont CA)

Facts:

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

Issue(s):

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?

Ratio:

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

Holding:

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.