Uttering Death Threats or Threatening Bodily Harm

Uttering Death Threats or Threatening Bodily Harm

This article is a brief and general overview reviewing legal information about uttering threats in Toronto, Ontario. Those looking for advice on uttering threats charges should consult a criminal lawyer.

What is the definition of a threat?

The definition of uttering threats is found in the Criminal Code at section 264.1. Generally anyone can be charged with uttering a threat if they utter, convey or cause any person to receive a threat:
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person

What if the threat isn't said directly to the intended target, but to a third person?

The accused need not utter the threat directly to the intended victim to be found guilty. Furthermore, when the accused does not utter the threat directly but rather threatens to harm the intended victim to a third person, it is not a valid defence to argue that the accused did not intend that third person to communicate the threat to the intended victim for the crime to be established. Indeed, it is not even necessary for the intended victim to be aware of the threat in order to be found guilty of the offence.

What is required to establish a threat in law?

The Crown must prove that the accused knowingly made the threat and that he/she intended the threat to be taken seriously so as to produce a reaction of alarm or fear in the mind of the recipient.

What if the recipient of the threat did not take the threat seriously?

In law, all that is required is that the person making the threat intended the threat to be taken seriously. The fact that the person receiving the threat was not intimidated or scared does not constitute a defense to the charge of uttering threats.

What if it was threat was impossible to carry out?

Even in a situation where the accused makes a threat he/she could not carry out i.e.: " I will drop you from the top of the C.N. Tower", he/she may still be found guilty of the offence. The central focus for the Judge in deciding whether or not a threat was made will be on the maker's intention when the words were uttered (was it meant to be taken seriously so as to produce a reaction of alarm or fear in the mind of the recipient) - not on the present ability to carry out the threat.

It is important to remember that every allegation of threats is a fact specific inquiry. Consulting a lawyer will assist you with identifying potential defences to this type of allegation. Call me at (416) 297-7200 for a free consultation about your case.

BACK TO FAQ
BACK TO HOME

Criminal Assault Charges in Canada

Criminal Assault in Canada - http://www.yourbestdefence.com/

What is an assault? The definition of assault is found in the Criminal Code at section 265. Generally an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person, or who attempts or threatens to do so without consent.

What degree of force is required? A person need not harm someone for an assault to occur. An accused may commit an assault although he exerts no degree of strength or power when touching the victim. The force however must be offensive or an affront to an individual's dignity. A push or pinch may be sufficient to establish an assault.

What if I accidentally hit someone? The application of force must be intentional. Accidentally hitting someone during the course of an epileptic seizure, for example, would not constitute an assault. However accidentally hitting one person in an attempt to hit another is not a defence to assault. It does not matter who the intended victim is, as long the offender intended to apply force to any individual, it is still an assault.

What is the difference between an assault, an assault with a weapon, an assault causing bodily harm and an aggravated assault? The difference between an assault and an assault with a weapon is the vehicle used to deliver the force. Generally an assault or “simple assault” is caused by the application of force from a person’s extremities such as hands, legs or feet. An assault with a weapon generally involves the application of force with an inanimate object such as a stick, bat, knife or object thrown and can even be delivered by something other than an inanimate object including a dog ordered to attack a person.

The difference between assault, assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault is the harm suffered as a result of the application of force. An assault that causes any hurt or injury that is not transient or trifling in nature and interferes with the complainant’s health or comfort will meet the definition of bodily harm. In order for an assault to meet the definition of an aggravated assault, the injury must be much more substantial.

Any sort of injury that wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of another meets the definition of an aggravated assault.The amount of harm caused by an assault will likely dictate the type of sentence imposed by the judge. While some “simple assault” charges may not result in any jail time, an aggravated assault charge may result in a sentence amounting to several years in jail depending on the severity of the injuries inflicted on the complainant.

Defences to Assault

Consent - For an assault to have occurred, the Crown must prove that the application of force by the accused person was done without the consent of the party to whom the force was applied. Consent may be express or implied. It many instances, consent is implied and this may be determined from the circumstances surrounding the offence. Generally there is an implied consent to pat a co-worker on the back or shake hands with a relative stranger. However, fraudulently-obtained or forcefully-extracted consents and are really no consents at all. In addition, no one may consent to being killed or seriously injured. A consent to a fight does not normally imply permission to inflict significant bodily harm. Thus where the offender intends, or actually causes, significant harm or death, consent is not a defence.

Mistake Belief in Consent - Even if the Crown proves that consent did not actually exist, it is still available to the accused to argue that they honestly believed the aggrieved party had consented to the application of force. An honest but mistaken belief in consent will also afford a defence to an assault charge.

Self-Defence - The law recognizes that a person is justified in using force or threatening force in certain circumstances to protect either themselves, close family members or property. The basic rule permits the use of force if the force is reasonable in the circumstances. Whether the use of force is reasonable is entirely fact specific and can depend on a number of different factors.It is important to remember that every allegation of assault is a fact specific inquiry.

Consulting a lawyer will assist you with identifying potential defences to this type of allegation. I can be reached at 416.297.7200 to discuss your situation. For more information please consult my website at http://www.yourbestdefence.com/.

Domestic Assault Charges

A domestic assault can be defined as an assault (see “Criminal Assault In Canada") that takes place between two people who are either currently or formerly dating or in a common law or married relationship. Where an assault takes place between two people who share one of these relationships mentioned above, the mater is labeled “domestic” and prosecuted quite differently by Crown counsel.

According to the “Crown Policy Manual”, a document provided by the Attorney General detailing how Crown counsel are to perform their duties, “Crown Attorneys should prosecute domestic violence offences as vigorously as other serious criminal matters”.

Although not classified differently in the Criminal Code, in many jurisdictions, domestic assaults are separately identified and prosecuted by a special team of Crowns who almost exclusively deal with these types of allegations.

Internal police policies dictate that in almost all situations, the police shall charge a person alleged to have assaulted another in a domestic context, regardless of whether or not independent proof exists such as visible injuries or independent witnesses to the offence. A person’s word is enough to drag another through the criminal justice system.

At the court stage, the Crown will usually carry on with a prosecution in cases where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. It is of little importance to the Crown Attorney that the person making the complaint does not wish the matter to proceed to trial. In domestic situations, a complainant does not have the choice to “press charges” or not. If a complaint of domestic violence is made, the police will arrest and charge the person accused of the offence and the Crown will likely prosecute them regardless of the complainant’s wishes.

Typically, those charged with a domestic offence are held for a bail hearing, whether or not they are otherwise upstanding citizens without previous criminal involvement. They are also likely to be put on strict conditions of bail which restricts contact with the complainant even if the complainant wishes to have contact with the person charged. The accused person will also likely be required to remain away from their residence, regardless of legal ownership if the complainant continues to reside there. Conditions such as these remain for as long as the criminal charge are before the court.

While it is sometimes possible to change the conditions of bail, the process by which a bail is amended is often lengthy, complex and costly. For details on how to amend a bail condition see “How Can I Change My Bail Conditions”.

There are many ways to defend against an allegation of domestic assault without pleading guilty. Every allegation is different and it is important to discuss with a lawyer what options are available to you before you walk into a courtroom for the first time.

For more information on this, or any other tpe of criminal charge, visit my website at http://www.yourbestdefence.com/ or call me at 416.297.7200 to arrange a free consultation to discuss your specific situation so that I can provide sound legal advice that suits your needs and objectives.