R v Mardon

The appellant, Mardon, appealed his conviction on four grounds following a trial before a judge without a jury. The dispute concerned charges of serious criminal trespass and attempting to create a risk of harm, stemming from the appellant's admitted contamination of the victim's milk and apple juice with glyphosate. The appellant had been disfellowshipped from their shared Jehovah's Witness congregation, and his motivation for the contamination was to pressure the victim, a member of the elders' committee, to facilitate his reinstatement.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning the appellant's discreditable conduct, the trial judge's findings of credibility, the inferences drawn from the evidence, and the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons. Specifically, the court considered whether the trial judge correctly assessed the appellant's intent and knowledge regarding the potential harm of the contaminated drinks, particularly in light of the appellant's defence that the substance tasted so bad it would not be consumed.

The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the appellant knew glyphosate was a toxic chemical capable of causing harm, even after rejecting the appellant's evidence about a poisons hotline and his own consumption of the substance. The court found no error in the trial judge's approach to the evidence, including the assessment of the appellant's credibility and the inferences drawn. The trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's evidence was inherently improbable was deemed open to him.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's verdict.