Right to self-defence upheld in Hodgson manslaughter Supreme Court decision
Canada’s top court releases reasoning behind decision to not force new manslaughter trial
The Supreme Court of Canada disclosed Friday its reasons for reinstating the 2021 acquittal of Daniel Hodgson on a second-degree murder charge relating to the death of a man in Iqaluit in 2017. (File photo by David Venn)
The Supreme Court of Canada has released its reasons for ruling earlier this year that Daniel Hodgson won’t face a new trial after being acquitted in the 2017 death of a man in Iqaluit.
In 2021, Hodgson was found not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Bradley Winsor, 23, at a house party in Apex.
The Crown appealed that ruling, and in 2022 the Nunavut Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Hodgson.
The appeal judges stated Justice Susan Charlesworth, who presided over Hodgson’s trial, had failed to consider Hodgson’s state of mind at the time of the incident when accepting his self-defence argument, and didn’t properly consider the inherent danger of a chokehold.
Hodgson’s lawyers appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, which in February ruled Hodgson will not face a new trial.
On Friday, in releasing in writing its reasons for that decision, the Supreme Court found that Charlesworth made no error in law when she ruled Hodgson was acting in self-defence when he administered a fatal, one-armed chokehold on Winsor.
Justices Sheilah Martin and Mary Moreau wrote the explanation for the court’s ruling, with the consent of the seven other justices.
“There is no legal rule as to the general dangerousness of chokeholds,” Martin and Moreau wrote.
Knowing that a chokehold could cause bodily harm and possibly death is not reason enough to convict a person of murder, they said. The circumstances surrounding the act must also be considered.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed Charlesworth’s application of Section 34 of the Criminal Code, which relates to a person’s right to self-defence, to assess Hodgson’s use of self-defence.
Hodgson had used the chokehold as a “known calm-down method,” based on his experience in safely using the technique when he worked as a bouncer in 2016, according to the Supreme Court’s explanation of its ruling.
Hodgson’s actions were deemed reasonable by Charlesworth given the physical threat Winsor posed and the need to use force to remove him from the property.
With the lack of history of “bad blood” between Hodgson and Winsor, the Supreme Court justices supported Charlesworth’s use of this evidence, among other evidence, in determining Hodgson had no intent to kill Winsor.
The appeal heard by the Supreme Court also brought to light the Crown’s limited right of appeal when seeking to overturn an acquittal.
In this case, the Crown failed to prove Charlesworth had made an error of law, which would have included a failure to consider all evidence or using the wrong legal principles.
At Hodgson’s trial in 2021, testimony showed Winsor was getting aggressive at the house party and had pushed a man. Hodgson testified he believed Winsor was going to hit a woman, and grabbed him.
Winsor’s elbow hit Hodgson on the head, and Hodgson put him in a chokehold until Winsor started to turn blue.
What rhymes with Shmonfidential Shminfornant?
World’s least helpful informant if he needed a bump to the supreme court.
Why spread garbage? This case followed the regular trajectory of a very marginal homicide.