You are here: / Uttering a Threat
  • Vancouver at night

Uttering a Threat

The Charge

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code sets out that everyone who knowingly utters a threat to another person to cause death or bodily harm, or to damage or destroy property, is guilty of an offence. The essence of the offence is that the prosecutor must prove that the accused intended their remarks to genuinely cause the complainant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. There is no requirement that the intended victim be aware of the threat; the offence is made out upon proof that the accused intended the words to cause fear or alarm. In determining whether or not the accused’s statements are a threat, the words must be viewed objectively in the context in which they were spoken. The words must have been uttered with an intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

Uttering a threat is a hybrid offence meaning that the Crown has the option of proceeding by indictment and to seek a sentence of up to five years in jail. Alternatively, the Crown can proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is two years less a day. There are no mandatory minimum sentence requirements for uttering threats. Non-custodial sentences are available.

The Investigation

Unlike many other criminal investigations, in threatening charges, the substantive evidence usually comes not from the police, but from the complainant who says you threatened them. Upon receiving the complaint, police will seek out the suspect and attempt to obtain their side of the story.

When contacted by a suspect prior to their arrest, we can be of significant assistance. We will make enquiries to determine who the investigating officer is. Because of the laws concerning solicitor/client privilege, we can act as a “buffer” between our client and police. We can speak on our client’s behalf without risk of creating incriminating evidence against them. We will negotiate to have our client not charged, or if charged, to be released from custody quickly and on the least restrictive terms that are appropriate. Typical release conditions include no contact with the complainant, including face-to-face contact, or indirect contact by phone, text, email or through a third party. Other conditions may include no weapons, no alcohol or other similar protective conditions.

Recent Successes

R. vs. D.A. – Kelowna Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Obstruct Police Officer.
Issue: Despite the very serious nature of the offence (threatening to cause serious harm at knifepoint) whether a jail sentence was the appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to direct our client through an intensive course of rehabilitation, and was ultimately able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional sentece to be served in the community in a residential tratment facility. No jail.

R. vs. R.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the extensive rehabilitation effort of our client, whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation was a significant factor and that, despite kicking the complainant, the appropriate sentence was a discharge on condition of "no contact" for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. O.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Criminal Harassment (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's significant self-rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to end the criminal prosecution and to resolve the matter with a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. P.A.N. – West Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Fraud (from employer).
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with authorities and willingness to repay the alleged misappropriated funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the police investigator to refer the file to Restorative Justice rather than arresting our client and recommending a criminal prosecution. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in  the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client's belf, whether it was in the public interest top proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client's circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. v. Q.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charhges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.
Issue: Whether our client's personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines'submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to  jointly  recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence.. No jail.

R. vs. R.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).
Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the coplainant sustained a significant injury.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.
View All

The Defence

The typical defences to threatening charges is to establish doubt that the words were ever uttered or, alternatively, that the words uttered were not intended to be taken seriously by the complainant. Clearly, any evidence from third party witnesses or video or audio recordings will be relevant.

As experienced lawyers, we are able to offer significant assistance to clients who contact us before they are contacted by police. We will contact the police investigator and will strive to persuade police to not take you into custody at all or, alternatively, to release you on the least onerous conditions as possible, as quickly as possible. In our more than 25 years of experience, we have been successful in obtaining non-custodial sentences for the majority of our clients charged with uttering threats. We will strive to resolve your threatening charge with alternative measures, a peace bond or a discharge.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect