Supreme Court


Kidnapping is aggravated form of forcible confinement

Accused charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement. Victim was abducted and then confined in three different houses. Fingerprint, footprint, and DNA evidence connected accused to all three houses where victim was confined. No evidence linked accused to victim’s initial abduction. Trial judge finding that accused assisted principal offenders in confining victim in three houses but did not take part in initial abduction. Trial judge acquitted accused of kidnapping but convicted him of forcible confinement. Court of Appeal allowed Crown’s appeal and entered conviction for kidnapping, finding that kidnapping is continuing offence and that party liability for kidnapping may be incurred in course of continuing confinement. Appeal dismissed. Kidnapping is aggravated form of forcible confinement and is continuing offence that lasts for duration of victim’s confinement. Accused assisted in victim’s continuing confinement while knowing or being wilfully blind to fact that victim was kidnapped. Accused thereby made himself party to offence of kidnapping.

R. v. Hernandez (July 26, 2012, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J., LeBel J., Deschamps, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell and Moldaver JJ., File No. 34286) Decision at 94 W.C.B. (2d) 161 was affirmed. 102 W.C.B. (2d) 694 (37 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?