Nunavut appeal court orders new trial for man acquitted of murder in 2017 chokehold death - Action News
Home WebMail Friday, November 22, 2024, 06:54 AM | Calgary | -13.3°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
North

Nunavut appeal court orders new trial for man acquitted of murder in 2017 chokehold death

Last month, the Crown appealed his acquittal, arguing Charlesworth erred by not treating the chokehold seriously enough. In a written decision dated Oct. 21, the Nunavut Court of Appeal found that the Crown had grounds for its appeal.

Trial judge didn't address the dangers of chokehold, appeal judges say

The Nunavut Court of Justice pictured in June 2020. (David Gunn/CBC)

The Nunavut Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for Daniel Hodgson, who was acquitted last year of murder for chokingBradley Winsor during aparty in Iqaluit.

Winsor died in 2017 at a house party in Apex.At the party, Winsor, described as alarge man, was intoxicated, high and becoming violent. Other people there asked Hodgson to get him to leave. After being hit on the head himself by Winsor, Hodgson put his arm around the younger man's neck from behind.

Hodgson said he acted in self-defence and only meant to restrain Winsor, not kill him. In May 2021,Nunavut Justice Susan Charlesworth ruled there was not enough proof to say he intended to kill Winsor.

Last month, the Crown appealed his acquittal, arguing Charlesworth erred by not treating the chokehold seriously enough.

In a written decision dated Oct. 21, the Nunavut Court of Appeal found that the Crown had grounds for its appeal.

"We agree with the Crown that the trial judge improperly took a solely subjective approach to assessing the respondent's response to the perceived threat posed by Mr. Winsor," the appeal judges wrote.

They wrote that blocking someone's airway is "always an act which is more than merely transient or stifling in nature" and bears inherent dangers. They said Charlesworth did not address that inherent danger in her reasons for acquittal but rather "appeared to accept that a chokehold was a 'regular calm down method' or a 'known calm down move.'"

"While the respondent admitted he was trying to stop Mr. Winsor from struggling, including possibly rendering him unconscious, the trial judge did not assess this evidence with respect to what the respondent believed or intended considering the dangerousness of squeezing Mr. Winsor's neck to the point of unconsciousness, or the possible recklessness of his actions," they added.

"But for this error, the verdict on second-degree murder may well have been different."

The judges ordered Hodgson to stand trial again on the charges.