R v Fowler

The appeals in the matter of R v Fowler involved two appellants who had been found guilty by a jury of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm with the aggravating circumstance of being in the company of one another. Each appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with parole fixed. The appellants challenged their convictions on several grounds, which were consolidated and heard together. The primary issues revolved around the nature of the indictment, the handling of potential duplicitous charges, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts.

The appellants contended that the trial judge should have found the indictment to be latently ambiguous or duplicitous, as it charged several separate offences within a single count. They argued that the evidence supported their claim that there were distinct offences and that the trial judge erred in leaving it to the jury to determine whether the indictment was duplicitous. They further argued that the trial judge should have directed verdicts of not guilty or required the prosecutor to elect which of the alleged assaults was to be left to the jury. Additionally, the appellants argued that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, particularly as the prosecution had confined itself to relying on a specific section of the Criminal Code and could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that either appellant was individually responsible for an assault occasioning bodily harm.

The court considered these arguments and found that the indictment was indeed duplicitous, as it charged multiple offences within a single count, leading to potential confusion for the jury. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge erred in not addressing the potential duplicitous nature of the indictment and leaving the matter to the jury. The court also found that the evidence did not sufficiently support the verdicts, as the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was individually responsible for an assault occasioning bodily harm. As a result, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and new trials were ordered for both appellants.