R v Murphy, 2010 NSPC 4

Accused was charged with multiple offences under the Criminal Code, including maiming a dog which belonged to his neighbour. The accused shot the dog after it had escaped from the neighbour’s house and ran towards the accused’s property. The accused had problems with the dog interfering with his chickens on previous occasions, however, the dog was not attacking the chickens when shot.

In response to the dog running from the house, the neighbour sent his children to the accused’s house to retrieve the dog. Instead of allowing the children to retrieve the dog, the accused sent the children home and shot the dog instead. Holding that the defence of property did not apply, and that the accused had less drastic alternatives available to him, the accused was convicted of the maiming charge.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia

Topics: careless use of a firearmdefencedefence of propertydogless drastic alternatives availablemaim

Report a Broken Link