R v Tilley

In the matter of R v Tilley, the defendant appealed against his conviction for aggravated threatening life, arguing that the Information was defective, the judge failed to properly direct the jury on elements of the alleged aggravation, the judge was required to leave to the jury by way of alternative verdict the lesser basic offence of threatening life, and the judge gave a deficient direction to the jury about the possibility that the reason the Stanley knife was not found was because it did not exist. The defendant was convicted by majority verdict of aggravated threatening life on the basis that he threatened to kill the victim with a Stanley knife after a minor collision between their vehicles. The defendant argued that the Information was defective as it failed to properly separate the basic offence from the aggravated offence, but the court found that the Information provided necessary particulars of the charge. The defendant also argued that the trial judge improperly combined elements of "use" and "threatened use" of an offensive weapon in directions to the jury on aggravation, but the court found no error in these directions. The defendant further argued that the judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the alternative basic offence of threatening life, and the court agreed that the alternative offence should have been left to the jury as it was reasonably open, viable, and a rational result on the evidence.

The court held that the appeal against conviction should be allowed, and there should be a retrial. The court found that the judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the alternative offence of threatening life, as the question of an alternative verdict was directly raised by the evidence in the trial and by the judge during summing up. The alternative offence was reasonably open, viable, and a rational result on the evidence, and it would not have been unfair to the defendant to leave the alternative offence for the jury’s consideration, even if counsel had objected. The court found no error in the Information or in the directions to the jury regarding aggravation. The appeal against sentence was not considered, as the appeal against conviction should be allowed and there should be a retrial.