The accused was charged with an indictable offence of unlawfully and wilfully injuring cattle under section 400 of the Criminal Code. After a night of drinking, the accused and another broke into and entered a barn filled with cattle. The stated intention of the accused in entering the barn was that he wanted to get warm. While in the barn, the accused threw disinfectant on the cows, sprayed red paint on the animals and rammed the handle of a pitchfork into the vaginas of the cows.
The Court found the accused guilty of the offence of unlawful and wilful injury of cattle, which required only a general intent. The Court clarified that the word “wilfully” in section 400 of the Criminal Code did not mean that the section required specific intent, instead, “wilful” meant intentional as opposed to accidental. As a result, the defence of drunkenness was not available and the Crown had satisfied its onus and proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source: Case Law