Latest news with #August2022
BBC News
12 hours ago
- BBC News
'Police officers saved my life after my partner stabbed me'
"I remember I was sort of in and out of consciousness, being strangled. And then the stabbing."When Laura dialled 999 about her partner having a mental health episode in the early hours of 2 August last year, little did she know the call would end up saving her own partner then began to attack her, which culminated in Laura being stabbed seven chance, PC Jack Milman and PC Tom McGrath, who were in the area looking to charge their body-worn cameras, made it to her home in minutes and were confronted with a scene they described as "horrific". Warning: This article contains an image that some readers may find graphicThe officers said they found the defendant in a small kitchen with one arm around Laura's neck and an eight-inch knife in his other hand, which he then used to stab her in the 12 seconds, PC Milman disarmed the suspect, while PC McGrath pulled the victim away to prevent further stabbing and took quick action to stem her Milman said: "It was actually an extremely fortuitous turn of events."We would have been 20 minutes away instead of six."I've probably had the call of 'somebody's got a knife' about a thousand times."That's not uncommon, but you sort of learn to have a sort of sixth sense for ones that sound a little bit more." 'Blood absolutely everywhere' "All we could hear was the screaming," PC McGrath said."It was horrific. That's the only word I can use to describe it."We walked in. There was blood absolutely everywhere on the floor."We just had to improvise and do the best for [Laura], really."PC McGrath noticed one of the victim's stab wounds was bleeding profusely and used his fingers to stem the added: "I think any colleague who'd have walked in there would have done the exact same thing." In addition to the seven stab wounds, one of which was life-threatening, Laura also suffered a collapsed lung and broken rib and required two emergency surgeries, as well as ongoing added: "I can't put into words how grateful and thankful I am for them."This has affected me massively. These officers decided to intervene; the man who attacked me was dangerous and strong."I've found my purpose now, and without them both saving my life, I wouldn't have this new purpose to be able to help survivors or help prevent these things, maybe, in the future."The officers have been nominated for the National Police Bravery Awards 2025 for their actions to save the life of Laura, whose surname has been withheld. The defendant was charged with attempted murder and intentional was deemed unfit to stand trial but, at a trial of the facts, was found to have committed the alleged a hearing later this month, the court will have the option of making a number of treatment orders or an absolute Police Federation chair Andy Spence said: "On that critical night, Jack and Tom's courageous actions were instrumental in saving a life and apprehending a dangerous attacker."Displaying remarkable bravery, they confronted and subdued an individual armed with a knife, showing no regard for their own safety."Their quick thinking and decisive actions prevented a potentially tragic outcome."If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please visit the BBC Action LineAdditional reporting by Ady Dayman and Sarah Hawley
CTV News
27-06-2025
- CTV News
B.C. man who used Bobcat as ‘weapon' against homeless people has appeal dismissed
A B.C. man found guilty of assault with a weapon for using a skid-steer Bobcat to chase two homeless people off his lawn – injuring one of them – has lost an appeal of his conviction, according to a recent court decision. William John Mcrae was found guilty of assault with a weapon and dangerous driving in provincial court last year, and the ruling on his appeal was posted online Wednesday. Justice Steven Wilson's reasons begin by recounting the incident that led to Mcrae's arrest, explaining that a homeless couple 'carrying all of their worldly possessions' stopped on a path adjacent to Mcrae's lawn while seeking out shade on a hot day in August of 2022. Mcrae called Vernon city bylaw officers who told him to contact the police, according to the decision, which notes he did not follow that direction. 'The appellant decided to deal with matters by himself. He initially told them to leave before turning on his sprinklers to soak the couple. When that did not have the desired effect, the appellant, who owned a landscaping business, went to get his Bobcat and put an eight-foot-wide bucket on the front of it before driving out towards the couple,' the judge wrote. 'He initially banged the bucket on the ground to encourage them to move more quickly. He then used the Bobcat to scoop up the couple's possessions and push them down the path in front of a neighbouring property.' The couple tried to stop Mcrae by yelling and waving their arms but were unsuccessful. The man – who the judge described as 'upset, in part because his belongings were damaged' – cut some flowers out of Mcrae's garden. 'In response, the appellant drove back to their possessions and ran over them,' the decision said. Mcrae challenged his conviction, which came after a four-day trial, on several grounds – mainly taking issue with the judge's approach to the evidence. One error Mcrae alleged the trial judge made was failing to adequately consider the possibility the female complainant fell to the ground as a result of heatstroke and not after being struck by the Bobcat. Mcrae argued the judge 'reversed the burden of proof' when dismissing this alternate theory of what took place, shifting the onus onto the accused to prove his innocence when the onus was on the Crown to prove his guilt. Wilson dismissed this argument. 'The trial judge did not require the appellant to prove the third instance of heat stroke to draw an inference of innocence. Instead, the trial judge found that the evidence as a whole did not support the inference that she collapsed again due to heat stroke and, that even if it did, that the evidence as a whole established she was still hit by the Bobcat,' he wrote. 'Thus, the trial judge found that there was no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's innocence, even after considering the appellant's heat stroke theory.' The appeal decision noted that to convict on the assault with a weapon charge, the trial judge did not necessarily need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was actually struck – although in this case, the lower court found she was knocked down and injured. 'Threats by way of gestures' is also a 'path to conviction' on the charge of assault with a weapon, the decision explained. Another ground of Mcrae's appeal focused on 'disputing the alternative path to conviction,' the judge wrote. Mcrae argued the trial judge made an error when saying a conviction would have been possible 'on (Mcrae's) evidence alone' even if the woman had not been struck by the Bobcat. 'The appellant's argument is that his evidence was only that he wished to intimidate (the couple) and to strike fear in them, but from a distance,' Wilson wrote. 'The appellant argues that based on his own evidence there was never an actual threat that he would hit them, and that scaring and intimidating is insufficient to ground a conviction.' Again, Wilson found the trial judge's conclusions were reached after considering the evidence as a whole, and no legal error was made. 'It is important to review the reasons for judgment as a whole, as opposed to criticizing certain sentences or phrases,' the decision said. Wilson dismissed the appeal entirely, finding no errors were made by the trial judge. 'The trial judge made findings of fact based upon his overall review of the evidence he accepted and the evidence he rejected, and his findings are entitled to deference,' the decision concluded.
CTV News
26-06-2025
- CTV News
Conviction upheld for B.C. man who used Bobcat as ‘weapon' against homeless people
A B.C. man found guilty of assault with a weapon for using a skid-steer Bobcat to chase two homeless people off his lawn – injuring one of them – has lost an appeal of his conviction, according to a recent court decision. William John Mcrae was found guilty of assault with a weapon and dangerous driving in provincial court last year, and the ruling on his appeal was posted online Wednesday. Justice Steven Wilson's reasons begin by recounting the incident that led to Mcrae's arrest, explaining that a homeless couple 'carrying all of their worldly possessions' stopped on a path adjacent to Mcrae's lawn while seeking out shade on a hot day in August of 2022. Mcrae called Vernon city bylaw officers who told him to contact the police, according to the decision, which notes he did not follow that direction. 'The appellant decided to deal with matters by himself. He initially told them to leave before turning on his sprinklers to soak the couple. When that did not have the desired effect, the appellant, who owned a landscaping business, went to get his Bobcat and put an eight-foot-wide bucket on the front of it before driving out towards the couple,' the judge wrote. 'He initially banged the bucket on the ground to encourage them to move more quickly. He then used the Bobcat to scoop up the couple's possessions and push them down the path in front of a neighbouring property.' The couple tried to stop Mcrae by yelling and waving their arms but were unsuccessful. The man – who the judge described as 'upset, in part because his belongings were damaged' – cut some flowers out of Mcrae's garden. 'In response, the appellant drove back to their possessions and ran over them,' the decision said. Mcrae challenged his conviction, which came after a four-day trial, on several grounds – mainly taking issue with the judge's approach to the evidence. One error Mcrae alleged the trial judge made was failing to adequately consider the possibility the female complainant fell to the ground as a result of heatstroke and not after being struck by the Bobcat. Mcrae argued the judge 'reversed the burden of proof' when dismissing this alternate theory of what took place, shifting the onus onto the accused to prove his innocence when the onus was on the Crown to prove his guilt. Wilson dismissed this argument. 'The trial judge did not require the appellant to prove the third instance of heat stroke to draw an inference of innocence. Instead, the trial judge found that the evidence as a whole did not support the inference that she collapsed again due to heat stroke and, that even if it did, that the evidence as a whole established she was still hit by the Bobcat,' he wrote. 'Thus, the trial judge found that there was no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's innocence, even after considering the appellant's heat stroke theory.' The appeal decision noted that to convict on the assault with a weapon charge, the trial judge did not necessarily need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was actually struck – although in this case, the lower court found she was knocked down and injured. 'Threats by way of gestures' is also a 'path to conviction' on the charge of assault with a weapon, the decision explained. Another ground of Mcrae's appeal focused on 'disputing the alternative path to conviction,' the judge wrote. Mcrae argued the trial judge made an error when saying a conviction would have been possible 'on (Mcrae's) evidence alone' even if the woman had not been struck by the Bobcat. 'The appellant's argument is that his evidence was only that he wished to intimidate (the couple) and to strike fear in them, but from a distance,' Wilson wrote. 'The appellant argues that based on his own evidence there was never an actual threat that he would hit them, and that scaring and intimidating is insufficient to ground a conviction.' Again, Wilson found the trial judge's conclusions were reached after considering the evidence as a whole, and no legal error was made. 'It is important to review the reasons for judgment as a whole, as opposed to criticizing certain sentences or phrases,' the decision said. Wilson dismissed the appeal entirely, finding no errors were made by the trial judge. 'The trial judge made findings of fact based upon his overall review of the evidence he accepted and the evidence he rejected, and his findings are entitled to deference,' the decision concluded.
