R. v. Blake, 2020 BCPC 176

Citation: R. v. Blake 2020 BCPC 176 Date: 20200213 File No: 34129-1 Registry: Cranbrook IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SPENCER WILLIAM BLAKE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON Counsel for the Crown: B. Pankoff Appearing on his own behalf S. Blake Place of Hearing: Cranbrook , B.C.

Date of Hearing: February 12, 2020 Date of Judgment: February 12, 2020 [ 1 ] This is my decision in relation to count number 1 of Court Information 34129-1. Spencer William Blake is charged that on or about the 30th day of November, 2019, at or near Cranbrook, in the Province of British Columbia, he did knowingly utter or convey a threat to Shannon Hebert to cause death or bodily harm to Shannon Hebert contrary to s. 264.1(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The Crown called two witnesses. Their first witness was, for lack of a better term, the alleged victim of the uttering or conveying of the threat, that being Shannon Hebert. The second witness was one of seven police officers who attended the alleged crime scene, Corporal Rodney Hrehirchuk, a 29-year veteran of the RCMP with some eight-and-a-half years' service here in Cranbrook. Corporal Hrehirchuk was both the watch commander and supervising corporal on November 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The defence did not call any evidence. The Arrest [ 4 ] As a result of a 9-1-1 call from Ms.

Hebert, Corporal Hrehirchuk and other police officers attended to a residence in Cranbrook, British Columbia, where, some five to 10 minutes after their arrival, the accused, Mr. Blake, came out of a side door to the residence. Three police officers approached Mr. Blake and instructed him to lie on the ground. Mr. Blake complied with the instruction, was cooperative with the police, and there were no issues with taking him into police custody. [ 5 ] Mr. Blake was taken by the police to the hospital. The Crown elected to call no evidence in relation to what occurred at the hospital.

In any event, after going to the hospital, Mr. Blake was brought back by the police to the Cranbrook RCMP detachment where he was booked into cells. The Residence Search [ 6 ] Following Mr. Blake’s arrest, Corporal Hrehirchuk and other police officers conducted a warrantless search of the residence, which Mr. Blake did not take issue with at trial. [ 7 ] During the course of the search of the residence, three, what Corporal Hrehirchuk described as “firearms”, were seized: a .270 Winchester Short Magnum, a Browning 12-Gauge pump-action shotgun, and a Mossberg 12-Gauge pump-action shotgun.

Corporal Hrehirchuk also testified that police seized two boxes of “ammunition”. Corporal Hrehirchuk, who testified as to his considerable experience with firearms, and who is himself, a recreational hunter, testified that the three seized alleged firearms appeared to be firearms. However, for reasons unknown to me, the prosecution elected not to file as exhibits any Firearms Certificates or Certificates of Analyst in relation to the three alleged firearms or the two alleged boxes of ammunition. The prosecution also elected to call no expert evidence on the point.

No Evidence Motion [ 8 ] At the conclusion of the prosecution case, Mr. Blake made a “no evidence” motion in relation to counts number 1, 2 and 3. I dismissed the no evidence motion in respect of count 1. As I was therefore unable to find, as a matter of fact or law, that the seized alleged firearms and/or ammunition were firearms or ammunition, as those terms are defined in the Criminal Code , I dismissed counts number 2 and 3 based on the no-evidence motion brought by Mr. Blake. The Threat [ 9 ] In Ms. Hebert’s evidence, she stated that after a car ride to her brother's place outside of Cranbrook, and where Mr.

Blake drove a vehicle into her brother's barn, she and Mr. Blake went back to Mr. Blake’s residence in Cranbrook, all the while listening to music and joking. I do not know why they did that, but that is the evidence before the court. [ 10 ] Ms. Herbert testified that once they were inside the defendant's residence, Mr. Blake began using his telephone. She started texting with her husband, while Mr. Blake was sitting by his patio door with his legs crossed. About one hour from their previous last drink of alcohol, Ms. Hebert saw that Mr. Blake had started crying and that Mr. Blake had a gun.

She did not know where he produced the gun from, but there it was. She said Mr. Blake put the end of the gun into his mouth, which I take to mean the end of the barrel. Ms. Hebert told Mr. Blake, "Spencer, it's okay." Mr. Blake continued crying. [ 11 ] Ms. Hebert told the court, "I don't know anything about guns, but it was a long one." Long, black gun, shotgun length, like a .22, "Long enough for him to put it on the floor to his chin." [ 12 ] Ms. Hebert then stated that she had been around guns before when she was with the defendant, Mr. Blake.

She said the gun was made of metal and was three to four feet in length. She said this was a random moment because earlier Mr. Blake had been happy and they had been joking around. [ 13 ] Ms. Hebert testified that she then texted her husband to tell him what was going on, and her husband told her to leave. Ms. Hebert said at that point Mr. Blake slid over the floor, turned around, pulled or engaged the gun, which I took to mean the action, and pointed the gun towards her face, about an arm's-length away. Mr. Blake then told her “to get the fuck out of the house”. Ms. Hebert asked Mr.

Blake, and I quote, "I said, ‘Are you going to shoot me?’" And Mr. Blake replied, "If I have to, just get the fuck out of my house."

[14] Ms. Hebert testified that Mr. Blake continued pointing the gun at her. She said she was in shock at that moment, still a littlescared, and she then left the residence. Ms. Hebert said that Mr. Blake sounded angry, upset, and, "He sounded pretty serious when hewas yelling at me to get out of his house." [15] Ms. Hebert went on to say that she would not have left the residence if she thought it was a joke. After she left the residence,she became scared because she could hear Mr. Blake shuffling around inside the house. She was afraid Mr. Blake might come after herand she was scared that he would harm himself.

As a result, she called 9-1-1. It is unclear as to why Ms. Hebert remained on theproperty, but she did. [16] After calling 9-1-1-, Ms. Hebert remained on the telephone talking to the dispatcher or the telephone operator, as the case mightbe, until the police showed up. [17] Ms. Hebert testified that when she left the residence, she didn't look back as she was freaked out. Ms. Hebert was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Blake.

While I find that she had some difficulty remembering facts, such as when she woke up that day,I do not find that her alcohol consumption was such that I have to dismiss what she says happened inside of Mr. Blake's residence. Giventhe timing of the police attendance to that residence at 1:23 a.m. in the morning of November 30, 2020, I find as a matter of fact that theevents that I was told about by Ms. Hebert occurred on November 29, 2019 and into the early morning hours of November 30, 2019. Inparticular, the events she described concerning Mr.

Blake pointing what she thought was a firearm at her did, in fact, occur on November30, 2019 in the City of Cranbrook, Province of British Columbia. Discussion [18] Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence before me, I have to ask myself, has the Crown made out its case that Mr. Blakedid utter or convey a threat to Shannon Hebert to cause death or bodily harm to Shannon Hebert? [19] I have been given one case which I believe is on point, R. v. Deneault, 2002 BCCA 178 , 2002 B.C.C.A. 178.

Thisdecision instructs me as a trial judge that when dealing with conditional threats such as the one in this case made by Mr. Blake to Ms.Hebert, I should not, because it is a conditional threat, exclude it from the ambit of s. 264.1(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code. [20] So I ask myself can the words spoken by Mr. Blake to Ms. Hebert come within the ambit of the offence created by s.264.1(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code? I am instructed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of R. v. Clemente, (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758, that under the present

section the actus reus of the offence is the uttering of threats of death or seriousbodily harm.

The mens rea is that of the words "be spoken or written as a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm." That is: theywere meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. [21] To determine if a reasonable person would consider that the words were uttered as a threat, the court must regard themobjectively and review them in light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which they were spoken, and theperson to whom they were addressed. [22] In doing that in this case, I find that an objective observer in the circumstances of this offence, given the facts that I have found,would find that the words spoken by Mr.

Blake, given that they were spoken to Ms. Hebert while Mr. Blake was pointing something ather that she believed was a gun, would meet the definition under 264.1(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code of uttering or conveying a threat tocause death or bodily harm. [23] Having made that determination, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven count number 1 and, accordingly,I convict Mr. Blake on count number 1. That is my decision. (REASONS CONCLUDED)