R. v. McCraw (1991), 49 O.A.C. 47 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Stephen Joseph McCraw (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(21684)
Indexed As: R. v. McCraw
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
September 26, 1991.
Summary:
The accused was acquitted on three counts of threatening to cause serious bodily harm contrary to s. 243.4 of the Criminal Code. See (1989), 21 Ottawa L. Rev. 201. The Crown appealed the acquittal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Finlayson, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 35 O.A.C. 144; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 239; 72 C.R.(3d) 373, allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittals. The court convicted the accused on each of the three counts and remitted the case to the trial judge for sentencing. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 1567
Threats – Threat to cause serious bodily harm – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the words “serious bodily harm” in s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code meant any hurt or injury, whether physical or psychological, that interferes in a substantial way with the integrity, health or well-being of a victim – “Serious bodily harm” was not equated with death – To determine whether written or spoken words constitute a threat to cause serious bodily harm the nature of the threat must be looked at objectively, considering the person to whom they were addressed and the circumstances in which they were uttered – See paragraphs 15 to 23, 26, 42.
Criminal Law – Topic 1567
Threats – Threat to cause serious bodily harm – The Supreme Court of Canada held that since rape can cause serious bodily harm, the threat of rape may, depending on the circumstances, constitute a threat to cause serious bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code – The court affirmed that letters sent by the accused to three women threatening to have sexual intercourse with them, with or without their consent, constituted threats to cause the women serious bodily harm – See paragraphs 33, 42.
Evidence – Topic 9
Question of law – What constitutes – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the decision as to whether the written or spoken words in question constitute a threat to cause serious bodily harm is an issue of law and not of fact – See paragraph 26.
Words and Phrases
Serious bodily harm
– The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the words “serious bodily harm” as found in s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 – See paragraphs 15 to 23, 42.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Nabis, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 485; 2 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. LeBlanc, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1583; 96 N.R. 240; 99 N.B.R.(2d) 449; 250 A.P.R. 449, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Billam (1986), 8 Cr. App. R.(S.) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 243.4(1) [para. 7]; sect. 243.4(1)(a) [paras. 1, 16].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 264.1(1) [paras. 7, 13, 25, 33]; sect. 264.1(1)(a) [paras. 1, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 26, 33, 36, 41-42]; sect. 267 [para. 35]; sect. 267(2) [paras. 19, 21-22]; sect. 273 [para. 35]; sect. 752 [para. 28].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Burgess, A.W., Rape Trauma Syndrome (1983), 1:3 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 97 [para. 32].
Giacopassi, D.J., and K.R. Wilkinson, Rape and the Devalued Victim (1985), 9 Law and Human Behavior 367 [para. 32].
Herd, C.H., Criminal Law: Kansas Recognizes Rape Trauma Syndrome (1985), 24 Washburn L.J. 653 [para. 32].
Mahoney, K., R. v. McCraw: Rape Fantasies v. Fear of Sexual Assault (1989), 21 Ottawa L. Rev. 207, pp. 215-216 [para. 29].
Marshall, P., Sexual Assault, the Charter and Sentencing Reform (1988), 63 C.R.(3d) 216, p. 221 [para. 32].
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1987) [paras. 21, 34].
Counsel:
Donald B. Bayne, for the appellant;
Carol Brewer and Rosella Cornaviera, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Bayne, Sellar, Boxall, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on June 4, 1991. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on September 26, 1991, by Cory, J.
