R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25
Canadian law is made up of two main primary sources: legislation and case law. Legislation consists of statutes, which are laws passed by the Legislature, while case law consists of written judicial decisions of the courts. Case law creates precedents, meaning that judges follow previous rulings that guide them in making similar decisions in similar cases. In the recent decision of R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25, the Supreme Court of Canada discusses issues surrounding murder, chokeholds, and self defence, creating a binding precedent. An overview of the case is outlined below.
In May 2017, Daniel Hodgson attended a house party and was asked to assist with removing another intoxicated guest (the victim), who refused to leave despite repeated requests to do so. A physical altercation ensued, during which Hodgson intervened and used a chokehold to restrain the victim, who lost consciousness and died shortly thereafter. Hodgson was charged with second degree murder, but was acquitted.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal of the acquittal and directed that a new trial be held on the basis that the trial judge erred in law in her analysis of the mens rea for murder and the application of self defence to manslaughter.
Hodgson appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, who allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.
Second Degree Murder
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge’s ruling that Hodgson caused the victim’s death by placing him in a chokehold. However, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite subjective mens rea (the accused’s state of mind), which is that Hodgson intended to kill the victim or intended to inflict bodily harm knowing it was likely to cause death.
The subjective foresight required for a murder conviction is focused solely on what the accused intended, not what the accused “ought to have known” about the chokehold’s risk. Objectively, chokeholds are not inherently dangerous acts. As a method of restraint, chokeholds can carry with them a degree of danger, but the degree of dangerousness must be assessed on the specific facts of each case. The trial judge found that Hodgson did not think a chokehold was inherently dangerous and that using it in self defence was reasonable in the circumstances.
Because Hodgson used the chokehold as a means of self defence to protect himself and others at the party, he had a defence to the lesser offence of manslaughter.
Self Defence
The trial judge found that Hodgson’s defence of self defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code had an air of reality and that the Crown failed to establish that the chokehold was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Self defence requires both a subjective and objective analysis. Subjectively, one must believe that force or a threat thereof was being used against them or others and the intention to use force was exclusively for the purpose of defence. Objectively, this belief must be reasonable in the circumstances, assessed by what a reasonable person in the accused’s position would perceive.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge correctly applied the framework set out in s. 34 and specifically addressed each of its elements: she found that Hodgson believed on reasonable grounds that the victim was making a threat of force against others and that he used the chokehold for the purpose of defending or protecting himself and the others from the threat posed by the victim. Considering all other relevant factors, the trial judge concluded that the Crown failed to establish that the chokehold was not reasonable in the circumstances. Given her doubt as to whether Hodgson’s use of a chokehold was unreasonable in the situation, she found Hodgson not guilty of manslaughter.
The Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Hodgson reaffirms the high threshold required to prove the subjective intent for murder. It also emphasizes the need to carefully consider the specific circumstances in cases involving chokeholds. Lastly, the decision clarifies the legal analysis required for self defence, ensuring that both a subjective and objective assessment is appropriately applied. This decision creates a precedent that will provide guidance and assist judges for future cases involving murder, chokeholds, and self defence moving forward.
