Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- on:r_v._vien_2025_oncs_110 [2026/08/07 05:06] – victorzhou
+++ on:r_v._vien_2025_oncs_110 [2026/08/21 22:43] (current) – victorzhou
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 First, on the prohibited act, I have a reasonable doubt as to whether the words that Mr. Stevenson remembered were words that Mr. Vien actually uttered. Additionally, even if Mr. Vien uttered those words, I have a reasonable doubt as to whether a reasonable person would perceive, in the circumstances, the words as a threat of death.
-Mr. Stevenson was a witness who was very defensive of his words and his positions. He frequently refused to admit facts that ought to have been admitted from the start. His evidence on his degree of intoxication is an example. Mr. Stevenson also refused to admit any errors in his evidence and in his chronology of events. I accept that certain subjects where he was contradicted under cross-examination were of a periphery nature but it is exactly these types of facts that Mr. Stevenson ought to have admitted, which leaves me uncertain on the rest of his evidence. Additionally, Mr. Stevenson was frequently argumentative with defence counsel, endlessly explaining his theories on a wide array of topics. In its entirety, it would be risky to accept Mr. Stevenson's evidence, leaving me with a reasonable doubt on what Mr. Vien said. Indeed, Mr. Stevenson was shown to be apt to exaggerate or embellish events and he refused to admit any possibility that he did so on less-important details. In a case of threats, small changes to the words which were said or not said can change a lot. I thus have a reasonable doubt as to what Mr. Vien said.
+Mr. Stevenson was a witness who was very defensive of his words and his positions. He frequently refused to admit facts that ought to have been admitted from the start. His evidence on his degree of intoxication is an example. Mr. Stevenson also refused to admit any errors in his evidence and in his chronology of events. I accept that certain subjects where he was contradicted under cross-examination were of a peripheral nature but it is exactly these types of facts that Mr. Stevenson ought to have admitted, which leaves me uncertain on the rest of his evidence. Additionally, Mr. Stevenson was frequently argumentative with defence counsel, endlessly explaining his theories on a wide array of topics. In its entirety, it would be risky to accept Mr. Stevenson's evidence, leaving me with a reasonable doubt on what Mr. Vien said. Indeed, Mr. Stevenson was shown to be apt to exaggerate or embellish events and he refused to admit any possibility that he did so on less-important details. In a case of threats, small changes to the words which were said or not said can change a lot. I thus have a reasonable doubt as to what Mr. Vien said.
-The reasons set out above would suffice but I would also add in the alternative that I have a reasonable doubt as to whether a reasonable person would have perceived Mr. Vien's words as how Mr. Stevenson related them, a death threat. The evidence indicates that Mr. Vien was intoxicated, that he was agitated and that he argued heavily for his political and social views. However, the evidence also indicates that Mr. Vien was more or less, which is possibly an anglicism,((On Roger J. using the words "plus ou moins" in his reasons for judgment.)) more or less an open book, that he identified himself to Mr. Stevenson by showing his firearms license, that he sent Mr. Stevenson a Facebook message and that he gave Mr. Stevenson a huge before leaving him. I thus have a reasonable doubt as to whether a reasonable person would have perceived the words attributed to Mr. Vien as a threat. I find that it is more likely that the words in question would have been perceived as an exaggeration uttered by a frustrated individual who spoke in strong language about things that frustrate him.
+The reasons set out above would suffice but I would also add in the alternative that I have a reasonable doubt as to whether a reasonable person would have perceived Mr. Vien's words as how Mr. Stevenson related them, a death threat. The evidence indicates that Mr. Vien was intoxicated, that he was agitated and that he argued heavily for his political and social views. However, the evidence also indicates that Mr. Vien was more or less, which is possibly an anglicism,((On Roger J. using the words "plus ou moins" in his reasons for judgment.)) more or less an open book, that he identified himself to Mr. Stevenson by showing his firearms license, that he sent Mr. Stevenson a Facebook message and that he gave Mr. Stevenson a hug before leaving him. I thus have a reasonable doubt as to whether a reasonable person would have perceived the words attributed to Mr. Vien as a threat. I find that it is more likely that the words in question would have been perceived as an exaggeration uttered by a frustrated individual who spoke in strong language about things that frustrate him.
 Additionally, or in the alternative, I also have a reasonable doubt on the element of fault. The evidence points to the conclusion that Mr. Vien did not have the intention that his words be taken seriously and rather he meant the opposite. I admit that the words in question are exact and that they were uttered by someone who lives close to the prime minister's residence and has access to firearms. However, these words were uttered in the context of a long conversation where the participants often disagreed. In this context, the evidence instead points to the conclusion that he was trying to convince his recalcitrant conversation partner of the merits of his numerous political and social views. I do not doubt that Mr. Stevenson perceived a threat, and it is a factor that I considered both in the //actus reus// and in intention, but I place little weight on Mr. Stevenson's perception given my conclusion on his credibility and reliability and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances that night.
 Consequently, I find the accused not guilty of the offence charged.