Self Defense – Using a Chokehold

There is no legal rule as to the general dangerousness of chokeholds. Each case must be assessed on its own facts.

The dangerousness of a chokehold can vary based on factors such as its nature, force and length. The proposition that a chokehold is always an inherently dangerous act runs the risk of inappropriately injecting an objective element into the mens rea analysis for murder.

The subjective foresight required for murder is focused solely on what the accused intended, and the analysis cannot consider what the accused ought to have known about the inherent dangerousness of a chokehold. Thus, when considering the mens rea for murder, a trial judge should not be and cannot be required to assess an accused’s intention against the fact that someone else in their position should have or would have been aware of the danger the chokehold posed.

Accordingly, for an accused to be convicted of murder, it is not sufficient for the Crown to prove that a particular accused knew that a chokehold in the circumstances was dangerous or that a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have known that the chokehold would cause bodily harm that was likely to cause death. Neither of these findings would meet the requisite level of subjective intent required for a murder conviction, namely that the accused intended to cause death or that the accused intended to cause bodily harm that they knew was likely to cause death but was reckless as to whether or not death ensued.

Source: R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 (CanLII),