"Threatening Words

A "threat" has been interpreted to include any "menace or denunciation that ill will befall the recipient."[1]

"Bodily harm" includes psychological hurt or injury in addition to physical.[2]

The test for whether an utterance constituted a criminal threat is a question of law not fact. The words "must be looked at in the context in which they were spoken or written, in light of the person to whom they were addressed and the circumstances in which they were uttered. They should be viewed in an objective way and the meaning attributed to the words should be that which a reasonable person would give to them."[3]

Factors that are to be considered include:[4]

the actual words spoken;
the circumstances in which the words were uttered;
the manner in which they were spoken;
the person to whom they were addressed and that person’s situation; and
the speaker and that person’s situation

A conditional and future threats in certain cases will satisfy the elements of a criminal threat.[5]

It is further of no relevance whether the accused was capable in carrying out the threat.[6] ".

And " Actus Reus

The actus reus is made out where a "reasonable person aware of the circumstances would perceive the words as a threat of death or bodily harm."[1]

Mens Rea

The necessary mens rea requires that the accused intended to speak words to intimidate or intended the words to be "taken seriously."[2]

Purpose

The aim of s. 264.1(1)(a) is directed at words causing "fear" or "intimidation" and is intended to "protect the exercise of freedom of choice by preventing intimidation."[3] It is not meant to capture "words spoken in jest".[4] "