R. v. Williams Date:, 2017 BCPC 230

Citation: R. v. Williams Date: 20170608 2017 BCPC 230 File No: 210523-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. TERRY DALE WILLIAMS ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A. WOLF Counsel for the Crown: E. Moghadamian Appearing on his own behalf T.D. Williams Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 7 and 8, 2017 Date of Judgment: June 8, 2017 [ 1 ] Forgive me, I note the time, it's four o'clock. If I don't provide you a decision today, it may be weeks, if not months, before I do, and I realize that all the parties have been patient. It has been, as has been pointed out, nearly two years and three months since the

date of the incident. I know present is the first witness for the Crown, Mr. Narraidoo, who has been patiently waiting, as well, the investigating officer, and most importantly, Mr. Williams is here and is deserving of a conclusion. [ 2 ] So these are the oral reasons in the matter of R. v. Terry Dale Williams , and while I reserve the right to make small corrections in order to make these oral reasons more easy to understand, I will not, if there is a transcript ordered, change any of the substance. ALLEGATIONS [ 3 ] Once more, these are the oral reasons in the matter of R. v.

Terry Dale Williams on Information 210523-1. On this Information, Mr. Williams is charged with two counts of assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code . The two allegations are against two individuals. The first is Mr. Ved Narraidoo, and the second with respect to his wife, Tanouja Narraidoo. [ 4 ] The last allegation is found in Count 3, and it alleges an offence of mischief, specifically damaging some property of Mr. Ved Narraidoo, and that offence is contrary to s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code .

Both the allegations of assault and mischief that are alleged arise from an incident that came from April 4, 2015. THE GENERAL ISSUES [ 5 ] Did Mr. Williams assault Mr. Narraidoo; secondly, did Mr. Williams assault Ms. Narraidoo; thirdly, did Mr. Williams commit mischief when the camera was broken? NOT IN ISSUE [ 6 ] In an attempt to set the scene, I am going to provide a brief

summary of the allegations. Mr. Williams is a mink farmer. As I understand, the property the farm is located on is fairly substantial acreage, perhaps in the 30-acre range. On that acreage is the protective building where the minks are housed. I also understand that the property may have other animals such as turkeys, cows, and dogs. The farm itself, at any one point in time, could have 20 to 30,000 minks being housed, and we were given figures that there could be, at any point in time, as low as perhaps seven or as high as perhaps 20 individuals working on the farm on any one day. [ 7 ] On April 4, 2015, Mr.

Williams saw the complainant, Mr. Ved Narraidoo, on his property. Mr. Narraidoo had a high-quality camera with a noticeable zoom lens attached to it. What happened next is a question that both accused and complainant recount somewhat differently. However, their recollections are consistent with each other in a few areas. [ 8 ] First, it appears clear by either account that Mr. Williams was not happy with having what he thought was a trespasser on his property. Second, both recount there being physical contact with each other. Third, the camera that Mr.

Narraidoo brought with him onto the property was broken. [ 9 ] The type of contact can be described as a scuffle. Depending on which version of events one relies on, there were potentially strikes made to either of the individual's faces. CREDIBILITY [ 10 ] The law is fairly clear. As a beginning, Mr. Williams comes before the court and benefits from the presumption of innocence; that is, he is presumed to be innocent of these offences until the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence.

The onus is on the Crown to prove each element of the offence. [ 11 ] I mention this now, and I will probably mention this later, that criminal trials are not credibility contests. It is not a question of who do I believe more. I may believe some, all, or none of any evidence provided by any witness, and I remind myself, if I believe some of the evidence, I have to ask myself why, and if I disbelieve certain parts of an individual's evidence, I also have to ask myself why. THE SPECIFIC ISSUES [ 12 ] The legal issues raised in this case are not unique, and I wish to be clear on three points.

First, I understand that a person has a right to evict a trespasser from their property. Second, a caretaker or farmer that has charge of animals has the right to protect those animals. In my view, not only does a farmer have the right, but also possibly the legal obligation to protect his or her animals from actual harm, but also from being disturbed or annoyed. Third, I believe a person who has land, whether a dwelling, barn or in the form of real property, has the right to ensure that the lawful enjoyment of that property is not interfered with. THE EVIDENCE [ 13 ] It seems clear to me that Mr.

Williams takes his obligations to his two farms very seriously. He testified that he spends nearly $30,000.00 per year on protective security. He has dozens of employees, and almost 24-hour security on his farms. I note that Mr. Williams has an extensive knowledge of the mink farming business, and is well aware that there are some environmental groups that may disagree with Mr. Williams' chosen method of business.

But these rights and obligations to protect his property and animals in his charge are not absolute; that is, they are not deplete of some concept of reasonableness. [ 14 ] I also appreciate that in this case, the circumstances are very unusual. It is important to note a number of factors. Clearly, Mr. Williams did not know that Mr. Narraidoo was invited to the property. Equally clear, at the moment of first contact, Mr. Narraidoo would have no way of knowing that Mr. Williams did not want him there.

I would think in the normal case of coming across an unwanted person on your property, a simple "who are you, what are you doing here," and "get off my property" would be enough to resolve most disputes between landowners and a trespasser. However, I can envision circumstances where a landowner might even need to somehow detain an individual until the police attended. In our circumstances, no such conversation took place. Mr. Narraidoo was not offered an opportunity to leave peaceably.

[15] There is little doubt in my mind that Mr. Williams was extremely upset with the possibility that this person had possibly takenpictures of his property. His reasons for being upset were clearly set out in his testimony. He, in the heat of the moment, believed thatthe unknown person on his land may have been involved with trying to "set some minks free". In his mind, he came across an unknownindividual that had something in his hands. At first he thought it could have been a mink. Almost immediately, during the course of thephysical confrontation, he realized that it was a camera.

He also indicated it could have been a stone or a piece of metal. He wasuncertain why this individual was on his land. Mr. Williams was aware that when releasing the minks, quite often certain activists willuse video footage or take pictures in pursuit of their goal. [16] Mr. Williams testified that he had walked down through his farm, rather than driving, on this occasion. He expressed thethought that had he driven, then Mr. Narraidoo would have heard him and either run away, if he was a trespasser, or maybe identifiedhimself as being present. In my view, this recognition by Mr.

Williams is really a recognition that he regrets what took place that day. There is little doubt in my mind that if there was no camera, then likely Mr. Narraidoo would have simply exited the property, and thatgiven a few minutes of time, each party would have been able to have a better understanding of the situation in which they both foundthemselves. THE LAW PRE-2012 [17] The law previous to 2012 considered the issues of trespassing and the rights of landowners.

The issue to consider was simple;was there a trespasser, and if so, was no more force than is necessary used to eject the trespasser? [18] To illustrate the law as it stood prior to the current provisions of the defence of property, I find the B.C. Court of Appealdecision in R. v. Brown, BCCA helpful. Relying on, as it then was, s. 41(1) of the Criminal Code, the courtdiscusses that

section in the context of ejecting a trespasser. At paragraph 5 of the decision, the Court of Appeal writes: Counsel for the appellant relies on s. 41(1) of the Code, as authority for ejecting a trespasser. It reads: Everyone who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under hisauthority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove atrespasser therefrom if he uses no more force than is necessary.

In that case, at paragraph 6, the court concluded in those circumstances that this argument must fail on the simple ground that thecomplainant was not a trespasser at any time during these events. [19] Was Mr. Ved Narraidoo a trespasser? I fully appreciate that in the eyes of Mr. Williams, Mr. Narraidoo was a trespasser. Afterall, Mr. Williams was at a great disadvantage. He had no knowledge of how this man got on his property. With respect, however, theevidence is clear that Mr. Narraidoo was invited to the property by individuals that he had every reason to believe had the authority toinvite him.

Of course, once more, Mr. Williams had no way of knowing this. One might even explain the situation by saying Mr.Williams had what a layperson might call an honest but mistaken belief in this fact. In any event, in law, Mr. Narraidoo was not atrespasser, and as such, even under the older provisions, following the older case law, there was no legal right for Mr. Williams to useforce to expel him from the real property. I appreciate there is some question in the evidence whether or not these tenants actually hadthe authority to allow Mr.

Narraidoo to be on the actual farm where the minks were kept, and that at least in Mr. Williams' eyes, for anumber of very good reasons, they did not have that authority. [20] For the sake of argument, let us assume that Mr. Narraidoo was a trespasser and that Mr. Williams had the legal authority toeject him. Such a hypothesis is reasonably raised by the evidence of Mr. Williams. For example, he testified that the gate that was openbetween the rental property and the farm was secured by a padlock, and Mr. Williams indicated he was the holder of the key to thatlock.

He testified "it was my padlock." [21] The tenants that were located in the residence to which Mr. Narraidoo was invited, as a term of their residency, the renters werenot supposed to be on the property where the mink farm was. This point in the evidence was unclear to me, because there was someevidence that one of the individuals, identified as Franz, at some point in time was feeding the minks. That left me with the impressionthat he may have been an employee of Mr. Williams, and in that circumstance, may have had the legal authority to invite Mr. Narraidooonto the property.

It became apparent, after hearing from Mr. Williams, that Franz was not an employee, but was an actual resident. [22] To be clear, there is a fence that runs between the house where Mr. Narraidoo was invited, and where the minks were kept. Theissue under our older laws would then be – did Mr. Williams use no more force than necessary to do so? [23] I will not examine this question at this stage of my reasons, as considering the test as set out by the old law previous to 2012 isnot that useful. However, I will provide further reasons on the force that was used within the context of the new provisions.

Before I dothis, I believe an examination of the actual provisions is helpful. POST-2012 LAW [24] The actual provisions that this case must be considered under came into statute form in 2012 and are found at s. 35(1), (2) and(3) of the Criminal Code. They are worth repeating. Bill C-26, Statutes of Canada 2012,

chapter 9, is now well known to legalprofessionals. You can open up any Criminal Code of Canada and turn to s. 35 to understand the law with respect to defence ofproperty. While there is ample case law in the past that has interpreted similar provisions, the Legislature of Canada clearly defines whatthe law is. I note, as well, that the Department of Justice, representing the Government of Canada, has made what I would callsignificant efforts to help the public understand these new provisions. Their website, Canada.ca, sets out the following, found in one oftheir chapters at

Chapter (

E) entitled "Defence of Property – Detailed Examination of New

Section 35 of the Criminal Code. Section35(1): A person is not guilty of an offence if they either believe, on reasonable grounds, that they are in peaceable possession of property or areacting under the authority of or lawfully assisting a person whom they believe, on reasonable grounds, is in peaceable possession of

property. There is no change from the old law and the new law when it comes to this concept of being in possession of property. [ 25 ] The defence of property can arise when a person's peaceable possession of property is threatened or challenged by another, such as by a person who is trying to take it or damage it or trespass on it.

Peaceable possession was a fundamental concept in the old law, and it is retained in the new defence of property provision found at s. 35(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 26 ] The concept of peaceable possession has been interpreted to mean that the possession of the property must not be seriously challenged by others. The seriousness of the challenge is not assessed by looking at the relative strengths of legal claims, but rather whether any challenge is likely to result in a breach of peace.

The criminal law is concerned about maintaining public order, and accordingly, the requirement of peaceable possession reflects this objective by limiting the defence in certain instances. [ 27 ] Section 35(1)(

b) concerns the situation where an individual believes that another person is about to enter, is entering, or has entered the property, without being entitled to do so by law, or is about to take property, is doing so, or has just done so, or is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so. [ 28 ] Section 35(1)(

c) indicates that the act constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of, and then it goes into some other exceptions. [ 29 ] Section 35(1)(

d) says "the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances," and I will talk a little more about what acts we are dealing with in this case, but a response in defence of property must be assessed as "reasonable in the circumstances." In law, what we call this is an objective basis, and a response in defence of property may involve any act, not necessarily the use of force, as was required by the old laws.

So it is the acts of the individuals that must be looked at and I must decide whether or not those acts were reasonable in the circumstances. [ 30 ] By the old wording previous to 2012, it was a concept of excessive force. Although there is no express limitation on the amount of force that may be used to defend the property from interference, Canadian courts have unambiguously held that it is not reasonable to use deadly force in defence of property alone, and certainly there is no suggestion that was being used in this case. APPLICATION OF THE LAW [ 31 ] There are two property owners here. First, Mr.

Williams was in peaceable possession of his real property, which contained buildings and animals on it. Second, Mr. Narraidoo was in peaceable possession of his personal property, his camera. In my view, both individuals are entitled, under law, to act in a manner that would protect their property interests. The real question before me is, were the acts committed by either party reasonable in the circumstances? [ 32 ] As no two cases are exactly alike, what is reasonable in the circumstances will vary from case to case, and I need to examine the acts and consider them in an objective manner.

I believe the new law of defence of property expressly requires that the triggering threat to be assessed and combined on what we call subjective; that is, what belief was honestly held by the accused, and objective; what would the reasonable person who shared the accused's belief do? [ 33 ] Before I consider the acts of each person, I pause to note that Mr. Williams has provided evidence in his defence. He has given sworn evidence, thus, as Crown counsel pointed out in closing submissions, this is a case that involves R. v. W.D . R. v.

W.D. is the guiding authority when considering the credibility of the accused. Generally speaking, that case stands for the proposition that where credibility is important, the trial judge must instruct the jury that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to that issue. The trial judge should instruct the jury that if they believe the evidence of the accused, they must acquit.

And while this is not a jury trial, I have to ask myself that question first; if I believe the evidence of the accused, then I must acquit him. [ 34 ] Secondly, if they do not believe the testimony of the accused, but are left in a reasonable doubt by it, they must acquit. [ 35 ] Thirdly, even if not left in a doubt by the evidence of the accused, they still must ask themselves whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on the basis of the balance of the evidence which they do accept. [ 36 ] In this case, both Mr. Narraidoo and Mr.

Williams were sober and not under the influence of any substances. To me, both individuals tried their best to recollect the events as they remembered them. Both appeared to be credible; that, is they believe what they are saying in court was true, to the best of their knowledge. However, again I caution myself once more that criminal cases must not become credibility contest. It is not a question of who do I believe more. In fact, if I have any reasonable doubt as to who to believe, I must weigh that doubt in favour of the accused. [ 37 ] This case is approximately two years and three months old.

It is an obvious point to me that as time goes on, witnesses are further away from the point in time that gives rise to the charges. As such, it is to be expected that witnesses will not be able to recollect certain things that they might have said or done. No witness, whether an accused or otherwise, should be faulted for lapses in memory of minor details that have little bearing on the bigger picture as to what took place. MR. NARRAIDOO [ 38 ] I will very briefly summarize some of the evidence of Mr. Narraidoo.

He essentially testified that while taking some pictures, he came across a man who was not very happy that he was there. He gave a detailed description of the demeanour of the unidentified male, who we now know to be Mr. Williams. He said Mr. Williams was approximately eight metres away and closing, and he recounted words that he remembered Mr. Williams saying. "What are you doing here? You have a camera. Are you taking pictures? What the fuck are you doing here? This is my farm. Give me the camera." Mr.

Narraidoo openly admitted to lying when confronted with the question, "Are you taking pictures?" He said that he was not. He explained this deception when he testified, that he thought it would "aggravate the situation" if he admitted to taking pictures.

[ 39 ] He then described the interaction in great detail. He said he grabbed my camera while saying "give me that fucking camera. He grabbed it with his hand; initially it might have just been one hand. I grabbed the camera to prevent him from taking the camera from me. I was holding onto both sides. He was holding the lens and pulling the camera from me. We were facing each other, and he was pulling the camera towards him and I was pulling it towards me." There was a struggle where, by Mr. Narraidoo's recollection, he was pushed to the ground. Mr. Narraidoo said, "He pushed me to the ground with one hand.

I fell back, hit my head on the ground, still holding the camera. He," being Mr. Williams, "was still trying to pull on it." [ 40 ] While on the ground, Mr. Narraidoo described other physical interactions that took place between them, including some strikes. He indicated that Mr. Williams had hit him "one, two or three times in the face", and there was a description of his throat being grabbed to the point that Mr. Narraidoo felt that he could not breathe. [ 41 ] At some point in time during this confrontation, Mr.

Narraidoo releases the camera and explains that it was taken, and at that point he described events where Mr. Williams swung the camera and hit the ground two or three times, and used the words "there's your camera," and at that point the camera was broken. Mr. Narraidoo recollected that he saw the lens detaching from the body of the camera. At that point, he stood up and started to run. MR. WILLIAMS [ 42 ] I will now provide a brief

summary of Mr. Williams' evidence. He indicated that he went to close some gates and he came within five feet of Mr. Narraidoo. Of course, he did not know who Mr. Narraidoo was at the time. The man he saw had something in his hands, and to use Mr. Williams' words, he said, "I thought he was releasing my mink or he was stealing some metal." It was clear that Mr. Williams saw that he had some item, but was not sure what it was. At this point, Mr. Williams says, "I grabbed him by both arms." And at this point, Mr. Williams says in his testimony, "I got whacked with whatever were in his hands.

His hands were free and sort of pounding me." This whole incident Mr. Williams described as taking less than five seconds. There was screaming, they rolled around on the ground, the camera was broken, and eventually Ved, as Mr. Williams referred to him, took off. [ 43 ] Mr. Williams then described the next actions that he took, which was to make sure that his animals were okay and there were no other intruders on his property. [ 44 ] Even by Mr. Williams' account, he placed his hands on Mr. Narraidoo first, and I can understand why he might do that.

He did not know what was happening, and having no idea what may have been in Mr. Narraidoo's hands, this act was, even as described by Mr. Williams, possibly

an act of self-defence. He was trying to hold his hands and perhaps stop this intruder from injuring him. [ 45 ] Further, according to Mr. Williams, it was at this point that Mr. Narraidoo came into contact somehow with his face. He described the contact as "a sudden shot." [ 46 ] In examining this scuffle, I am unable to determine with any degree of certainty whether this actual contact was

an act of self- defence on Mr. Narraidoo's behalf, once more reminding the parties that Mr. Narraidoo is also allowed to use certain force that is considered reasonable, in the circumstances, in defence of his property, his camera. [ 47 ] I am not able to determine with any degree of certainty whether this contact was

an act of self-defence or some other act, and the main reason for this I find is that Mr. Williams, through I suppose no fault of his own, did not put the question to Mr. Narraidoo on cross-examination. I had mentioned the rule in Browne v. Dunn and gave examples. This is one example where the question was not put to Mr. Narraidoo, "You hit me in the face, didn't you," and followed up with "I suggest that I grabbed you first, but you hit me first." There are any number of ways that topic could have been approached. But in the end, when I consider the evidence, I have no idea whether Mr.

Narraidoo would agree or disagree, or provide further evidence of the intention behind the contact. One way or the other, if this hit did take place, it could have been an accident, intentional, or even the result of a consensual fight. [ 48 ] Mr. Williams says the camera was broken essentially by accident as they tumbled down to the ground together. As mentioned above, Mr. Narraidoo provides a different recollection of how the camera was broken. PHOTOS [ 49 ] What other evidence was there?

The investigating officer was able to testify that he saw injuries on the elbows of the complainant, a goose egg on the back of his head and the swollen right side of his face. The officer testified that the photographs taken did not properly show these injuries. He agreed that the quality of the images that have been tendered as an exhibit in these proceedings are poor. I do note that the description of the injuries is consistent with Mr. Narraidoo's testimony. [ 50 ] There was also a picture of a camera that was broken. The officer said that he did not try to piece it together or take it apart.

To use his words, "It was assembled in the same condition that I received it." He placed it on a desk and took a picture. The picture shows a camera that was severely mutilated. It is broken in many pieces. There is no way for me to know with any degree of certainty whether so many pieces could break from two individuals falling to the ground; however, in my view, the damage to the camera is substantial and could be consistent with someone hitting it on something. [ 51 ] In the totality of the circumstances, there are some portions of Mr. Williams' testimony that are very clear. He describes Ms.

Narraidoo running towards him in an angered state and making physical contact with him. Even if I do not believe Mr. Williams, I am left with some possibility that this might have happened. [ 52 ] There are bizarre and unusual inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. One is that we have two witnesses who say that there was at one point a gesture of money being handed over, and we have the accused saying no such contact took place; in fact, he testified that no further contact took place at all. [ 53 ] Even Ms. Narraidoo indicated that she was the first one out the door and others followed.

It is not lost on me that this evidence differs from the recollection of Mr. Narraidoo. In my view, Mr. Williams has no reason to fabricate such a version of events. His

recollection was clear and exact. [ 54 ] Equally, Mr. Williams' recollection of the interaction with respect to Mr. Narraidoo was not as clear and not as exact. Mr. Williams described things in a general manner. He phrased answers with phrases such as "he probably said this," or "I probably said that." He admitted, in his words, when it comes to all the details, "I'm not really sure what happened." Once more, this does not surprise me, considering the amount of time that has lapsed. [ 55 ] As to the interactions with Mr. Narraidoo, I believe Mr.

Narraidoo's testimony was clear, unequivocal and internally consistent. He did not change his evidence between chief and cross-examination. Further, his testimony was consistent with the injuries that were seen by the officer. He was forthright in the manner in which he testified, making it clear when he had an exact memory, and making it clear when he was just providing his best recollection that may have been affected by some lapse of time. [ 56 ] With the greatest of respect to Ms. Narraidoo's testimony, I found her evidence to be unclear and not understandable in parts.

Even by her version of events, that a rock was at one time in Mr. Williams' hand, I am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether any contact took place between Mr. Williams and herself while they were on opposite sides of a fence. [ 57 ] I note in the closing submissions, the Crown recited s. 265 of the Criminal Code , which defines the meaning of assault and I acknowledge that contact is not a necessary requirement of assault, that sometimes words or gestures, depending on their context, can also be sufficient to make out an assault charge. [ 58 ] I accept Mr.

Narraidoo's testimony that he was angered at the idea of his wife possibly being hit by another person, but I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault took place on his wife at the hands of Mr. Williams. CONCLUSIONS [ 59 ] It must be remembered that no memories are perfect. As well, the circumstances we find ourselves in can often affect the quality of our recollection. In this case, there was an extremely brief physical interaction between Mr. Williams and Mr. Narraidoo. The whole interaction may have only been a few seconds to a minute or so. To borrow from the verbiage used by Mr.

Williams, "It was a struggle that lasted less than two seconds, where elbows were flying and we tumbled to the ground." [ 60 ] When I approach the evidence, I also have to make sure that my conclusions are ones that flow logically from the evidence that I have heard. I conclude that through no fault of Mr. Williams, he came upon somebody whom he believed to be trespassing. He saw the man. He saw that he had something in his hand. He did not know what it was at first. Within a moment, he realized it was a camera, and he reacted quickly and angrily. [ 61 ] I find that in the heat of the moment, Mr.

Williams did push or pull Mr. Narraidoo down to the ground. One way or the other, even by Mr. Williams' own account, Mr. Williams had placed his hands on Mr. Narraidoo and could have pushed or pulled him to the ground, not because he was wanting anyone to be on the ground, but because he would not release his hold. This touching, in these circumstances, done in this manner, is an assault.

Section 265 of the Criminal Code defines an assault as when a person attempts, by active gesture, to apply force to another person. There is no doubt that there was intention to apply force. The act of intentionally grabbing a person's arms is indicative of this intention. [ 62 ] I find that in the heat of the moment he used force on Mr. Narraidoo to get the camera away from him. [ 63 ] I do not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to choke Mr. Narraidoo. The scuffle was quick, and some of the actions no doubt were unintended. I do not doubt that Mr.

Narraidoo felt as if he was being choked, but stripping away each action and reaction in this case is not necessary. Any application of force, whether it be by blow or continued physical contact administered while a person is on the ground, is not reasonable. [ 64 ] Let me repeat that, because in my view, Mr. Williams, this is a very important point. Any application of force, whether it be by a blow or continued physical contact, administered while a person is on the ground is not reasonable, no matter what the degree of that force. [ 65 ] Once the camera was no longer in Mr.

Narraidoo's possession I find that Mr. Williams broke the camera. [ 66 ] I have little doubt that Mr. Williams regrets his actions to the point that had he had more time to consider his actions, and more information to inform his actions, he would have no doubt reacted differently. In my view, Mr. Williams' culpability is extremely low, but his actions were not reasonable in the circumstances. The force he used was beyond what needed to be used. I agree with Mr. Williams that his behaviour was simply, to use his words, "a pure reaction." However, I believe his actions were improper in law.

In fact, words would have been more than likely enough to resolve the issues between these two gentlemen. [ 67 ] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the elements of the offence against Mr. Narraidoo and the damage to the camera. [ 68 ] In the circumstances, Mr. Williams, I find you guilty of using force that was not reasonable in the circumstances, and thus guilty of assault on Mr. Ved Narraidoo as a result of an incident that occurred on April 4, 2015. [ 69 ] I also believe that either as a direct result of the force used that may have toppled Mr.

Narraidoo to the ground, or by actually smashing the camera to a fence or to the ground, I conclude that Mr. Williams broke the camera, the property of which did not belong to him, and thus committed the act of mischief. [ 70 ] That concludes my oral reasons. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)