Telecommunication Offences (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
Tag: wikieditor
m Text replacement - "(\{\{SCaseLong\|\{\{CanLIIR-S\|[\s]*[^\|]+\|)([a-zA-Z0-9]+)(\|[^\}]+\}\}[^\|]*\|[^\|]*\|[^\|]*\|[^\|]*[^\{]+\{\{FindSummaries\|)\}\}" to "$1$2$3$2}}"
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 8: Line 8:
{{SCaseHeaderLong}}
{{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|}} {{keywords|}} }}
{{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}}

Revision as of 08:47, 28 January 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed August 2021. (Rev. # 90330)

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.
Keywords: None

See Also