Telecommunication Offences (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "{{Currency\|([A-Za-z]+) ([0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])}}" to "{{Currency2|$1|$2}}" |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Currency2|August|2021}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderSentCases}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderSentCases}} | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
===False Alarm (s. 372)=== | ===False Alarm (s. 372)=== | ||
{{ | {{SCaseHeaderLong}} | ||
{{ | {{SCaseLong|{{CanLIIR-S|Kerton|599j|2001 NBQB 106 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Russell J}} |{{NB}}|SC| fine and 10 month probation | The offenders were husband and wife and were convicted at trial under s. 372. The victim was having an affair with one of them. The accused told victim that both husband and wife had AIDS. The accused were of otherwise good character. Judge rejected discharge. {{FindSummaries|599j}} {{keywords|}} }} | ||
{{SCaseEnd}} | {{SCaseEnd}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 13 May 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed August 2021. (Rev. # 92734) |
- < Sentencing
- < Cases
Case Digests
False Alarm (s. 372)
| Case Name | Prv. | Crt. | Sentence | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Kerton, 2001 NBQB 106 (CanLII), per Russell J | NB  |
SC | fine and 10 month probation | The offenders were husband and wife and were convicted at trial under s. 372. The victim was having an affair with one of them. The accused told victim that both husband and wife had AIDS. The accused were of otherwise good character. Judge rejected discharge. Find summaries of case. |