R. v. MacKieR. v. MacKie, 2022 BCPC 289

Citation: R. v. MacKieR. v. MacKie 2022 BCPC 289 Date: 20221219 File No: 30827-2-C Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. RICHARD LEWIS MACKIE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. McQUILLAN Counsel for the Crown: C. Longworth and J. Madden Appearing on his own behalf: R. MacKie Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 13, 14 and November 21, 2022 Date of Judgment: December 19, 2022

[ 1 ] Richard MacKie is charged with one count of assault on January 24, 2020, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“the Criminal Code ”) . He has pleaded not guilty. [ 2 ] Mr. MacKie represented himself during this trial, although he had previously been represented by counsel prior to the commencement of the trial. During the course of the first day of trial, it became apparent that Mr. MacKie objected to the charge being prosecuted due to the loss of video evidence of the incident.

Consequently, on the second day of trial, I heard submissions from the Crown as to the circumstances surrounding the lost video footage. After hearing those submissions, as well as Mr. MacKie’s assertion that he planned to retain a lawyer to advance a Charter application in relation to the lost video, I adjourned the continuation of the trial to allow Mr. MacKie to take steps to retain a lawyer. I note that the Crown opposed the adjournment. [ 3 ] Mr. MacKie did in fact subsequently retain a lawyer who then prepared and filed a Notice of Charter Application.

That application alleged a breach of s. 7 of the Charter as a result of the loss of video footage, and sought a judicial stay of proceedings as a result of the breach. [ 4 ] By the time this matter proceeded to a continuation date on November 21, 2022, Mr. MacKie had fired his lawyer and was again self-represented.

While he was unclear as to whether he wished to continue to advance the Charter relief set out on his Notice of Charter Application, I nonetheless took the view that I should consider it, particularly in light of the clear and detailed written submissions regarding the Charter issue which were set out in the Notice of Charter Application: See R. v. Richards, 2017 ONCA 424 , at paras. 111- 113 . [ 5 ] Accordingly, the issues that I must determine are as follows: 1. Does the loss of video footage from the store where the incident took place constitute a breach of Mr. MacKie’s rights set out in s. 7 of the Charter ?

If so, does such breach justify a judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter ? 2. If I do not order a judicial stay of proceedings, has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. MacKie assaulted Michael Owusu-Baffour on January 24, 2020? Evidence at Trial [ 6 ] The Crown relied on the testimony of three civilians and two police officers. Mr. MacKie testified on his own behalf. I will summarize each of the witness’ evidence in the order in which it was given. [ 7 ] Michael Owusu-Baffour is the complainant.

On January 24, 2020, he was employed as a security guard with Paladin Security and was stationed in the Gastown area of Vancouver. That afternoon he received a call from a staff member at a store on Water Street called Poppy and Rye with a complaint about a male in the store making staff feel uncomfortable. Mr. Owusu-Baffour immediately attended at the store, along with his security partner, Ali. [ 8 ] When he arrived at the store, Mr. Owusu-Baffour saw a male inside the store who was yelling and pacing around the store. That individual was subsequently identified as Mr. MacKie.

He said that the individual seemed angry and was being aggressive towards a store employee. Mr. Owusu-Baffour is trained to connect with persons and attempt to de-escalate, which is what he attempted to do that day with Mr. MacKie. He said that he initially told Mr. MacKie that he thought he knew him as he had seen him earlier that day. Mr. MacKie responded by saying, “You nigger, go back to your fucking country. You’ve come to our country to destroy our country.” Mr. Owusu-Baffour ignored the racist statement and asked him to calm down and leave the store. [ 9 ] A staff member then said that Mr.

MacKie had a key chain in his hand that he had not yet paid for. Mr. Owusu-Baffour then asked him to either return the key chain or pay for it before leaving. Mr. MacKie then turned his anger towards the staff member, who happened to have a foreign accent, and told her to go back to her country. [ 10 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour then asked his security partner to call the Vancouver Police Department. At that point Mr. MacKie moved closer to Mr. Owusu-Baffour and got into his face, yelling at him and calling him names, including multiple uses of the term “nigger” and telling him to go back to his country. (I note that Mr.

Owusu-Baffour is African-Canadian.) [ 11 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour put up his hands to keep Mr. MacKie away from him, and told him to back off as he was making him uncomfortable. Mr. MacKie continued to move towards him while Mr. Owusu-Baffour backed away until his back was against a clothing rack and a building support pillar. [ 12 ] At some point, Mr. MacKie appeared to be retreating so Mr. Owusu-Baffour dropped his hands, and began to look away. Suddenly, Mr. MacKie punched him in the face with his closed right hand, connecting on Mr. Owusu-Baffour’s mouth.

The impact of the punch caused his upper lip to bleed from inside his mouth. [ 13 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour then responded by punching Mr. MacKie in the face, causing him to fall backwards and land on the floor. [ 14 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour testified that throughout this encounter, prior to being punched by Mr. MacKie, his own demeanour was one of calm and openness, while he attempted to de-escalate the situation. He did not want to escalate the situation. He said that his hands were open throughout this exchange and he was not threatening in any way towards Mr. MacKie. [ 15 ] The police arrived about two minutes after Mr.

MacKie fell to the floor. When they arrived, they took him into custody. [ 16 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour described Mr. MacKie’s behaviour throughout this incident as being erratic, and possibly indicative of him

being under the influence of something. He described the individual as being about five feet seven inches tall, slim build, possibly aboriginal, dark medium length hair and thick lips. Mr. Owusu-Baffour recognized and identified Mr. MacKie in court. [ 17 ] After this incident, the cut to Mr. Owusu-Baffour’s upper lip took about a week to heal completely. He had a headache for about three or four days. [ 18 ] Alicia Morote was the second witness called by the Crown. [ 19 ] On January 24, 2020, Ms. Morote was working as an employee at Poppy and Rye.

Within the Poppy and Rye store is a separate but connected store within the same space, which is called House of McLaren. Shortly after Ms. Morote began her work shift at 4:00 PM she said that a man walked into the store playing very loud music on a device. He went to the lower floor of the store, which is where House of McLaren operates. Sometime after the man arrived, she saw the security guard, who she knew as Michael, enter the store and follow the man to the lower floor. The second security guard, Ali, remained outside of the store. [ 20 ] Ms.

Morote then observed Michael approach the man playing the loud music and begin speaking to him. He asked the man to leave the store. She then heard the man make a number of racist statements to Michael and saw him wave his hands around. More specifically she heard him use the N-word several times and told Michael that he should be a slave. The man also called her co-worker Natasha, “trash”. She said that Michael remained calm throughout, despite being called such names. [ 21 ] Ms. Morote then saw the man strike Michael in the face with his right hand.

Michael then held his hands up to his face where he had been struck. Ms. Morote then backed away in order to stay out of the situation. She then heard a loud crash and upon approaching closer, saw both men on the floor, with one of the clothing racks tipped over on the floor. The police then arrived. [ 22 ] Ms. Morote said that she had a clear view throughout of the interaction between Michael and the man she identified as Mr. MacKie. [ 23 ] Ms. Morote described the man playing the music in the store as a fairly tall Caucasian man, with messy short brown hair, skinny, between the ages of mid-thirty to fifty.

She was able to identify Mr. MacKie in court. [ 24 ] The third witness called by the Crown was Natalia Armstrong. [ 25 ] Ms. Armstrong was working at the House of McLaren store in Gastown on January 24, 2020. Sometime shortly after 4:00 PM a man came into the store carrying a music box playing very loud music. She asked the man to turn off his music but he refused. She then asked if she could help him and asked what he was looking for. He refused to answer. He put the music device down on a table and continued walking around the store. [ 26 ] The man’s behaviour caused Ms.

Armstrong to feel uncomfortable, particularly since she and Ms. Morote were the only other people in the store, so she called for security officials to attend. Shortly thereafter Mr. Owusu-Baffour and his partner Ali arrived at the store. [ 27 ] Mr. Owusu-Baffour then approached the man, who immediately began screaming at him and Ms. Armstrong. She confirmed that Mr. Owusu-Baffour asked the man to leave the store but he refused. He then began calling Mr. Owusu-Baffour the N-word and calling him a slave. He called Ms.

Armstrong “trash” and repeatedly swore at both of them. [ 28 ] She said that the man then punched Mr. Owusu-Baffour. Mr. Owusu-Baffour then punched him back and the man fell to the floor, along with a clothing rack. Although she was standing next to Mr. Owusu-Baffour when he was punched, she did not actually see the connection between the man’s fist and Michael’s face as she had momentarily turned towards the other security guard. She did, however, immediately see Mr. Owusu-Baffour’s broken lip. [ 29 ] Ms. Armstrong said that Mr.

Owusu-Baffour was calm and non-threatening throughout his exchanges with the man, prior to the punch being thrown. The other man had immediately become agitated and began screaming as soon as Mr. Owusu-Baffour arrived. Ms. Armstrong did not believe him to be intoxicated or high. [ 30 ] Ms. Armstrong described the man as being tall, well-built, with dark hair. She identified Mr. MacKie in court as being that man. [ 31 ] The fourth witness called by the Crown was Constable Matthew Hunter. [ 32 ] Const. Hunter is a police officer with Vancouver Police Department.

On January 24, 2020, he was dispatched to the Poppy and Rye store in Gastown with a report of a suspicious person. He and his partner, Const. Pauw, arrived there shortly after 4:00 PM. Upon entering the store he saw Mr. Mackie lying on the ground, and the two security guards wearing their uniforms standing about five feet away from him. Mr. MacKie had some blood on his lips and teeth. [ 33 ] The officers placed Mr. MacKie in handcuffs and told him he was under arrest for theft. He was then taken to and placed in their police vehicle. Mr. Mackie confirmed his name and date of birth to the officers.

After officers spoke to Mr. Owusu-Baffour, Ali, Ms. Morote and Ms. Armstrong, Mr. MacKie was rearrested for assault. [ 34 ] Const. Hunter described Mr. MacKie as being very agitated when dealing with him. He was yelling to the point that Const. Hunter asked him to face away from him so that he did not spray blood on him while he was yelling. [ 35 ] Const. Hunter described Mr. MacKie as a Caucasian male, 34 years old, 5’10”, 180 lbs, short brown hair and brown eyes. He also inputted Mr.

MacKie’s name and date of birth into the PRIME database and confirmed that the photograph of him on PRIME from 2017 was a true likeness to the person he arrested. He was also able to recognize Mr. MacKie in court. [ 36 ] Const. Hunter said that Poppy and Rye had video cameras in the store which would have at least partially recorded the incident.

Const. Pauw reviewed the video footage and downloaded it to a USB. However, upon returning to the police detachment it becameapparent that the footage did not download to the USB. [37] Both officers later returned to Poppy and Rye on several occasions to attempt to retrieve the video footage. On each occasionthey were unable to accomplish the download because the store was closed, the staff member did not know how to access the footage, orthe store did not have a computer mouse.

They attended at the store for that purpose on February 3, March 6 and March 14, as well astwo or three other occasions between February 3 and March 14. When they attended the last time on March 6, they brought their ownmouse but then discovered that the footage had been overwritten and was no longer accessible. [38] The final witness for the Crown was Constable Pauw. [39] Const. Pauw corroborated some of the evidence of Const. Hunter with respect to their attendance at Poppy and Rye and theirarrest of Mr. MacKie. She identified Mr. MacKie in court. [40] Const. Pauw further testified that after arresting Mr.

MacKie she had an opportunity to view the video footage of the incidentbefore she left the store. She confirmed that she then attempted to transfer the video footage to a USB drive but discovered that thetransfer did not occur once she attempted to view it after returning to the police detachment. She confirmed Const. Hunter’s evidence asto the efforts that they subsequently made to again retrieve that video footage. [41] Const. Pauw testified as to what she observed on the video footage which she reviewed at the store. She said that she saw Mr.MacKie enter the store at 4:30 PM and speak to the staff.

The security guard then arrived. Mr. MacKie put his finger in the securityguard’s face, which the security guard swatted away. Mr. Mackie then punched the security guard in the face. The security guard thenpushed him away. They then moved to a blind spot such that the video camera was not able to pick up any footage showing the securityguard punching him back. [42] Mr. MacKie testified in his own defence. [43] Mr. MacKie said that the incident which led to these charges took place in 2018 or 2019, and he was sure that it did not occur in2020 as alleged.

He said that on the date of the incident he noticed a store on Water Street in Gastown, which appeared to be sellingitems connected to his Scottish family roots. He entered the store and picked up a key chain that was connected to his family. He saidthat he then spoke to a Russian employee who told him, “You can’t buy anything here. You have to leave.” She then called security. [44] Security guards arrived, and one of them approached him, told him to leave, and punched him in the face. He described thatsecurity guard as a “big African dude”.

He said that the security guards did not display ID but he acknowledges that they were wearingsecurity guard uniforms. He was then arrested by the police. [45] Mr. MacKie acknowledges playing loud music on a big speaker when he was outside the store, but denies that he did so when hewas inside the store. He denies that he punched Mr. Owusu-Baffour or that Mr. Owusu-Baffour was injured or bleeding. He deniescalling Mr. Owusu-Baffour a “nigger” or a “slave”, or calling Ms. Armstrong “trash”. He acknowledges that Mr. Owusu-Baffour did notthreaten him. [46] Mr.

MacKie refused to answer any questions regarding his criminal record, despite being assured by the court that his recordcould only have relevance if it related to his honesty, and not as showing a propensity to commit a crime. Charter Application [47] The Crown has an obligation to disclose to an accused all relevant material in its possession, as long as the material is notprivileged. This obligation applies whether the material is inculpatory or exculpatory and irrespective of whether the Crown intends tointroduce the material at trial: R. v.

Stinchcombe, (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. [48] Crown disclosure is one of the aspects of the right of an accused to make full answer and defence, which in turn is a principle offundamental justice as embraced by

section 7 of the Charter. [49]

Section 7 states: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with theprinciples of fundamental justice. [50] Breach of the disclosure obligation is a breach of an accused’s constitutional rights without the requirement of showing actualprejudice: R. v. Carosella, 1997 SCR 80 at para. 37. [51] A question may arise as to whether the Crown has breached its disclosure obligations when, through innocent inadvertence, itloses evidence that would otherwise be disclosed.

Where that has occurred, the Crown has a duty to explain what happened to it. If theexplanation is satisfactory, the Crown’s obligation to disclose will have been discharged. There will, however, be a breach of theaccused’s Charter rights if the explanation does not satisfy the trial judge. Moreover, there may be extraordinary cases in which, despitea satisfactory explanation being given for the loss of the evidence, and there being no abuse of process, the loss of evidence is soimportant that its loss renders a fair trial problematic: R. v.

La, (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 680 at para. 1. [52] In terms of procedure to consider such an application as this, unless the Charter violation is patent and clear, it is generallypreferable to hear all of the evidence in the trial before ruling on the application. That allows the trial judge to assess the degree ofprejudice in the context of the evidence as it unfolded during the trial: La, at para. 27.

That is the process that I undertook in this case. [53] Where the Crown’s explanation satisfies the trial judge that the evidence has not been destroyed or lost owing to unacceptablenegligence, the duty to disclose will not have been breached. In order to determine whether the explanation advanced by the Crown is

satisfactory, the court should analyse the circumstances surrounding the loss of evidence, whether the Crown or police (as the case maybe) took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the evidence for disclosure, and the relevance of the evidence. The morerelevant the evidence, the greater the need to care for its preservation: La, at para. 21. [54] If the Crown’s failure to disclose constitutes a breach of the duty to disclose, a stay may be the appropriate remedy if it is one ofthose rarest of cases in which a stay may be imposed.

In extraordinary circumstances, even where the Crown has met its disclosureobligations, the loss of a document may be so prejudicial to the right to make full answer and defence that it impairs the right of anaccused to receive a fair trial, and a stay may be the appropriate remedy: La, at paras. 23-24. [55] One of the cases in which the issue of lost evidence was considered was R. v. Dixon, 2018 BCCA 181. In that case, the accusedhad been convicted at trial of sexual assault.

At trial the accused sought a stay of proceedings based on the loss of a short audiorecording made by the complainant on her cell phone shortly after the assault had occurred. The police had obtained the complainant’scell phone and, upon returning it to the complainant, told her that they had gotten everything off of it and that she could delete therecording if she wanted to. She then deleted it. The officer testified that his superiors had told him not to submit the phone to forensics.

Two witnesses testified that they had listened to the recording before it was deleted and said that they heard female laughter and that thecomplainant may not have been slurring her words. Thus the recording may have been exculpatory. [56] The BC Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that the police were not guilty of unacceptable negligence in failing topreserve the recording.

The court further held that even if there had been a breach of s. 7, trial fairness was not compromised becausetwo witnesses testified with respect to the contents of the audio recording, and it would not have been one of the “clearest of cases”warranting a stay of proceedings. [57] In R. v. Neidig, 2015 BCCA 489, the accused had been charged with a number of offences as a result of a single-vehicle motorvehicle accident that resulted in the death of a passenger in the vehicle. The accused was alleged to be the driver.

After the accident, thevehicle had been towed to an RCMP garage for inspection, after which it was left with the towing company and eventually destroyed. The trial judge had ordered a judicial stay of proceedings due to the failure of the RCMP to preserve the vehicle, thus preventing theaccused from engaging an expert to conduct a biomedical reconstruction of the vehicle. [58] The judicial stay was overturned on appeal. The appeal court held that the police should have been aware that the vehicle mightprovide exculpatory evidence given that the identity of the driver was in issue.

Furthermore, the police did not instruct the towingcompany to preserve the vehicle, nor did they advise the accused of the location of the vehicle or of its pending destruction. Under thecircumstances, there was an abuse of process. However, the trial judge fell into error in finding that destruction of the vehicle createdactual and irreparable prejudice to the accused’s right to make a full answer and defence.

The defence expert had testified that if he hadbeen able to conduct an examination of the vehicle, his assessment was as likely to have revealed inculpatory evidence as it was to haverevealed exculpatory evidence. As such, while the absence of the vehicle may have made it harder for the accused to advance hisdefence, it did not cause him irreparable harm. As such, it was not one of the clearest of cases meriting a stay of proceedings. [59] Similarly in R. v.

Bradford, (ON CA), [2001] 52 O.R. (3d) 257, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that,despite the conclusion that the loss of evidence was due to unacceptable negligence, it was not one of the clearest of cases in which a stayof proceedings was necessary for the interests of justice. In that case, the complainant had given police a written statement more than 10years before sexual assault charges were laid. That statement could not be found, possibly as a result of a routine purge of inactive files. The defence did, however, have access to five other statements made by the complainant.

The lost statement had to be considered in thecontext of the rest of the evidence, which included several other statements. While the task of the defence was made more difficultbecause of the missing signed statement, the accused’s trial was not rendered fundamentally unfair because of it. Also, see R. v. Boliver,2014 NSCA 99, at para. 33. [60] In the case before me, the police were never physically in possession of the video footage in issue, despite their originalmisapprehension that they were.

However, “possession” is established by the police learning of the existence of the video, viewing thevideo, knowing it to be relevant, and having the ability to seize the video simply by asking for it. Thus, in the present circumstances, thepolice had a positive obligation to preserve, and ultimately to disclose the evidence: R. v. Chan, 2020 BCSC 189, at para. 48. [61] Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, I find as follows. The testimony of Const. Hunter and Const. Pauw wasunchallenged. Their evidence established that Const. Pauw reviewed the video footage while still at the store.

She attempted todownload it to a USB. After it became apparent that the footage did not download, the police returned to the store on at least five otheroccasions to attempt to retrieve the video footage. On each occasion, and through no fault of their own, they were unable to accomplishthe download. When they attended the last time, approximately six weeks after the incident, they discovered that the footage had beenoverwritten and was no longer accessible. [62] In my view, the video footage was clearly relevant.

The question is not whether the police could have done more to retrieve andpreserve the footage, but instead whether the steps they took were reasonable. I find that the steps they took were reasonable. They werediligent and pro-active in their efforts. Their explanation for the loss has displaced the burden on the Crown to establish that there wasno unacceptable negligence by the police or the Crown. [63] Absent unacceptable negligence, the defence must prove actual prejudice. Mr. MacKie asserts that the video footage will showthat he was not the assailant but rather that he was the victim of an assault by Mr.

Owusu-Baffour. However, that is not supported by thetestimony of not only Mr. Owusu-Baffour, but also that of Ms. Morote and Ms. Armstrong. Moreover, Const. Pauw testified that thevideo footage actually showed Mr. MacKie being the aggressor in his exchange with Mr. Owusu-Baffour, and showed him punchingMr. Owusu-Baffour.

Her observations suggest that the video would have supported the theory of the Crown, rather than that of Mr.MacKie. (I observe that the testimony of a witness about what they have observed on a video that is no longer available does notconstitute inadmissible hearsay, nor does it violate the Best Evidence rule: R. v. P.D., 2020 BCPC 285; R. v. Pires, 2012 ONCJ 713, atpara. 57.) [64] Thus, while the loss of this video may make it harder for Mr. MacKie to advance a defence, it does not make it impossible. This

is not one of those “clearest of cases” in which a stay is merited. [65] The application for a stay is denied. Application of Facts to the Charge [66] Because Mr. MacKie testified, I am required to apply the analysis set out in R. v. W.D, (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR742. That case sets out the following 3-step analysis applicable in a criminal prosecution where the accused person testifies: First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence whichyou do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. [67] The evidence of the Crown witnesses was credible and reliable. Each of the witnesses who were present in the store when theincident occurred was consistent with one another. All three of those witnesses describe Mr. Owusu-Baffour as being calm throughoutdespite being called extremely derogatory names by Mr. MacKie, without any provocation. Mr.

MacKie on the other hand wasdescribed by all three of those witnesses as being very angry from the time Mr. Owusu-Baffour arrived in the store. He was alsodescribed as being combative before then. Each of those witnesses was also careful in their evidence. In the case of Ms. Morote and Ms.Armstrong, each acknowledged when their view of the incident was obstructed or they had glanced away. Constable Pauw’s evidenceabout what she observed on the lost video was also consistent with the testimony of the other Crown witnesses. [68] Mr.

MacKie was most fixated on the date of the incident as being incorrect, asserting that the incident occurred in 2018 or 2019,and not 2020. He also denied that Const. Pauw was present at the scene but instead insisted that police officer Neal was there. He saidthat he would not have struck Mr. Owusu-Baffour because he is not a fighter. His testimony of Mr. Owusu-Baffour punching himwithout any provocation stands in direct contradiction to the testimony of the three civilian witnesses and Const. Pauw. [69] Near the conclusion of Mr.

MacKie’s cross-examination, he stated that, in fact it was the other security guard Ali, rather than Mr.Owusu-Baffour who hit him. Mr. MacKie also refused to answer any questions about his criminal record, even after I assured him thatthe only reason for the questions was to assess whether he has any convictions for offences involving dishonesty, and not to establish thathe was more likely to have committed this assault because of his criminal record. [70] Upon a consideration of all the evidence, I do not believe Mr. MacKie’s evidence.

His evidence is entirely at odds with all of theevidence led by the various Crown witnesses. It also defies logic that Mr. Owusu-Baffour, a security guard who is trained in de-escalation, would enter the store and immediately punch Mr. MacKie in the face while surrounded by witnesses. In addition, Mr.MacKie denied ever hitting Mr. Owusu- Baffour, who ended up with a bleeding lip. [71] I find that the Crown has proven identity, being that Mr. Mackie was the person involved in the incident on January 24, 2020. Ialso find as a fact that Mr. MacKie punched Mr. Owusu-Baffour without any provocation.

He did so after making derogatory raciststatements to him. [72] Upon a consideration of all the evidence, I find that I am unable to accept the evidence of Mr. MacKie, nor am I left inreasonable doubt by it. Based on the evidence of the Crown witnesses, all of which I accept, I am convinced of the guilt of Mr. MacKiebeyond a reasonable doubt. [73] Mr. MacKie is guilty of count one, being assault of Mr. Owusu-Baffour on January 24, 2020. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge R. McQuillan Provincial Court of British Columbia