International Law

R. v. Rattray

The appellant was convicted of breaching a court order by being in possession of a firearm. His argument on appeal was that the court did not have jurisdiction over the offences, since possession of a gun in Michigan (which is where he bought an assault rifle) does not constitute an offence in Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal thought this was missing the point:

It is important to consider the substantive nature of the charges. The appellant was not charged with possession of a firearm, an activity which was perfectly lawful in the state of Michigan. He was charged with breach of three orders of Canadian courts, orders made in Canada and orders which the Crown alleges governed his conduct worldwide. When the appellant came into possession of the assault rifle, he was in breach of specific terms of each of a court order, a probation order and a recognizance, all of which required that he not possess any firearm.

…

In my view, it matters not that the underlying conduct did not constitute an offence under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place. It is not the underlying conduct of possessing a firearm that is the subject of prosecution, but rather the breach of court orders made and enforced in this country.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on February 07, 2008 (boomark / email).