R. v. Severight Date:, 2013 BCPC 354

Citation: R. v. Severight Date: 20130711 2013 BCPC 0354 File No: 199481 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. REGINA CAROL SEVERIGHT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE Counsel for the Crown: J. Gahunia, M. Duyler Counsel for the Defendant: C. Arnason Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 4, 5, 2013 Date of Judgment: July 11, 2013

[ 1 ] Regina Carol Severight is charged with conveying a threat to cause bodily harm to Elena Henricksson on April 10, 2013, in Surrey. There are both factual and legal issues in this trial. The Crown alleges that Ms. Severight conveyed a threat by her actions. I must first decide whether the evidence in the trial proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Severight made the actions alleged by the Crown, and then decide whether the Crown has proven both the criminal act and the criminal intent required to constitute the offence of threatening. [ 2 ] Ms.

Henricksson is a probation officer and conditional sentence supervisor who testified that during a meeting with her, Ms. Severight grabbed a pen, stood up, leaned towards her over the desk separating them, and holding the pen with its top portion in her closed fist and the point extending downwards towards her, moved her hand down towards her while yelling “you fucking cunt”. She said she pushed a panic button, ducked, and pushed herself away from the desk when she saw Ms. Severight leaning over and holding the pen.

Michelle Danchilla, a probation officer who responded to the alarm triggered by the panic button, testified that she saw Ms. Severight leaning half way across the desk holding a pen in her raised hand and yelling, and Ms. Henricksson looking frightened and standing back against the wall with her chair pushed against the door. [ 3 ] Ms. Severight testified that during the meeting she became increasingly upset with Ms. Henricksson. She said that while they were both seated, Ms. Henricksson refused her request for extra time out from house arrest for her birthday and Ms.

Severight shouted loudly “You’re a fucking bitch”. She testified that Ms. Henricksson then said “That’s it. I’m calling the cops”, pressed the panic button and moved back against the wall. Ms. Severight said she felt sick and wanted to leave the office, so she stood up, reaching for the pen and for the appointment slip. She said she held the pen in her right hand between her fingers in a writing position, repeated “Let me sign the paper”, and made a beckoning gesture with her left hand. She denied making any lunging or stabbing motion. [ 4 ] If I believe Ms.

Severight’s testimony or if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about what happened, I must dismiss the charge. It is only if I reject her testimony and am not left in doubt by it, that I must then consider whether the evidence I do accept satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of her guilt. [ 5 ] Because of the conflicting evidence, the witnesses’ credibility and reliability are issues in this trial.

In order to determine these issues I have considered a number of factors including: - the witnesses’ ability to observe and remember accurately; - whether the witnesses have previously said something different; - whether their evidence changed during their testimony; - whether their testimony makes sense; and - whether their testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence. [ 6 ] With regard to these factors, I conclude that the sequence of events Ms. Severight recalls does not make sense; her evidence changed; and her testimony is contradicted by that of Ms. Danchilla. Ms.

Severight was very angry and upset during the meeting and she thought her blood sugar was low. Her physical and emotional state may have affected her ability to perceive and recall accurately. She made a previous inconsistent statement but I have not given that factor much weight. [ 7 ] Her account does not make sense because there is evidence that in 21 years as a probation officer, Ms. Henricksson has pushed the panic button on other occasions but has never called police. Both Ms. Henricksson and Ms. Severight said Ms. Severight often used bad language and “disrespected” her supervisor. While Ms.

Henricksson might have pushed the panic button if Ms. Severight’s yelling escalated too far, with this background it does not make sense that Ms. Henricksson would announce she was calling police because Ms. Severight had shouted obscene insults at her. [ 8 ] Ms. Severight’s account of the incident changed during her testimony. At one point Ms. Severight said she didn’t remember if she was leaning forward; she had her right hand with the pen on the desk and was making a beckoning motion with her left hand. But she also said maybe she was moving her right arm to sign the slip.

T hen she said she reached out her right hand, saying “Let me sign”. [ 9 ] Ms. Danchilla testified she responded to the alarm triggered by the panic button immediately from an office across the hall. When she got to the back door of the interview room she saw Ms. Henricksson standing against the back wall with her chair in front of the door, and Ms. Severight yelling and leaning over the desk, holding a pen in her right hand with that hand raised to the level of her head. Ms. Danchilla’s observations are consistent with the sequence Ms. Henricksson described and inconsistent with Ms.

Severight’s account, because a person trying to sign a slip would not hold a pen up at the level of their head, and Ms. Severight said she was leaned back ready to get her jacket and sweater when Ms. Dancnchilla came in. [ 10 ] I have considered whether Ms. Danchilla was biased. She works with Ms. Henricksson but does not associate with her outside work. While I might expect her to be sympathetic to Ms. Henricksson, she was fair to Ms. Severight when she testified, admitting under cross examination that she didn’t know how Ms. Severight was holding the pen in her raised hand.

I found her to be a fair, careful witness who did not exaggerate and displayed no bias. I accept that she recounted what she observed accurately. [ 11 ] In a statement Ms. Severight made to police on April 11, when asked about the pen, she said “What pen? ... I didn’t have a pen.” She explained that during the interview she was more focused on the issue of breaching her CSO by violating house arrest than on the incident with Ms. Henricksson, and that she remembered grabbing the pen when she thought about it 3 or 4 days later after realizing she had to fight for her freedom. I consider Ms.

Severight’s statement to police to be a previous inconsistent statement contradicting her testimony but I do not place a great deal of weight on this because of the emotional tenor of her statement. She characterized it as being in part a tirade against Ms. Henricksson. Her apparent emotional state during the interview could contribute to her failure to recall the pen and appointment slip during her interview.

[12] Ms. Severight said that if she had had a guilty conscience after the incident, she would have left the area. I accept that after sheleft the probation office, she didn’t think of her behavior as criminal so wouldn’t have had reason to flee. However, I reject her accountof the incident for the reasons I have explained. [13] I accept Ms. Henricksson’s testimony. It was consistent, coherent and did make sense. Like Ms. Severight, Ms. Henrickssonprovided considerably more details in her testimony in court than in her statement to police. However, the witness statement taken fromMs.

Henricksson appears to have been poorly done by the police officer. It only lasted 4 minutes and consisted of three questions. Although she did not say Ms. Severight lunged at her in that statement, she did say “she picked up the pen and held it in the manner thatsomeone would hold a knife like they’re stabbing somebody and started approaching me. She leaned over the desk. I pushed the panicbutton.” She also mentioned that Ms. Severight lunged at her with the pen in a Victim Impact Statement she wrote between April 11 andMay 1. In these circumstances I do not find Ms.

Henricksson’s statement to police to be a previous inconsistent statement thatundermines her credibility. [14] A criminal trial is not a contest as to who is telling the truth. Having rejected Ms. Severight’s evidence, I must still considerwhether it raises a reasonable doubt. I find it does not for the reasons explained above. [15] I find the facts proven in the trial to be as Ms. Henricksson and Ms. Danchilla describe them. Thus, the evidence proves beyonda reasonable doubt that during a meeting when she was upset and angry with Ms. Henricksson, Ms.

Severight grabbed a pen, stood up,leaned towards her over the desk separating them, and holding the pen like a knife with its top portion in her closed fist and the pointextending downwards towards Ms. Henricksson, moved her hand down towards Ms. Henricksson while yelling “you fucking cunt”. [16] Does this action constitute a threat to cause bodily harm? [17] In R. v.

Clemente (1994) (SCC), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 1, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a court must resolvethis question by considering the words alleged to be a threat (in this case the action) objectively and reviewing it in light of thecircumstances in which it occurred, the manner in which it was made, and the person to whom it was directed in order to determine if areasonable person would consider that words (action) was made as a threat. [18] This action occurred during a conditional sentence supervision meeting when Ms.

Severight, who said meeting with Ms.Henricksson made her feel ill, grew increasingly angry and frustrated because she resented Ms. Henricksson’s supervision and Ms.Henricksson would not agree to her demands. Ms. Severight yelled and swore at Ms. Henricksson throughout the meeting. As Ms.Severight’s voice and body language indicated her anger was escalating, Ms. Henricksson decided to end the meeting and began toprepare an appointment slip. Ms. Severight is a considerably larger woman than Ms. Henricksson. She stood quickly and made thestabbing motion while yelling an imprecation as Ms.

Henricksson was filling out the slip. [19] Unlike the throat slitting gesture considered in R. v. Stacey 2009 NLTD 126, Ms. Severight’s action does not have a widelyrecognized meaning. However, viewed objectively, I find that standing, holding a sharp object in your fist as you would hold a knife,and making a stabbing gesture while you lean towards a seated person and yell “you fucking cunt” does convey a threat. The actionconveys the threat that the person making it will cause bodily harm by stabbing the other. [20] In R. v.

Clemente the Court also held that the criminal intent required for the offence of threatening is that the act be meant tointimidate or instill fear and to be taken seriously. Ms. Severight was angry and frustrated. She wanted desperately to end the interviewand leave. T he only reasonable inference from her actions in the circumstances in which they occurred is that she intended to intimidateMs. Henricksson in order to get her way, bring the interview to an end, and leave quickly. I therefore find the evidence establishes thatshe intended Ms.

Henricksson to fear her and take her seriously so that she would end the interview quickly. [21] For these reasons I find the evidence in the trial proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Severight is guilty of knowinglyconveying a threat to cause bodily harm to Ms. Henricksson. The Honourable Judge A.E. Rounthwaite Provincial Court of British Columbia