In what circumstances will the alleged uttering threat offence be dealt with?

The alleged uttering threat offence of the same date must be dealt with in the same way. There is a stark choice presented in the evidence: Adrian says that Cecil threatened him, and Cecil denies it. As indicated above, it is an error of law to decide a matter by choosing which version of events one prefers. As Richard J.A. said at paragraph 29 of Wilson v. R., 2013 NBCA 38, “While the principle may be easy to describe, it is not always easy to apply. This is especially so in cases where the prosecution is effectively grounded solely on the testimony of a complainant, and the defence on the diametrically opposed testimony of the accused: “the accused did it” versus “no I did not”. The evident danger in these cases is to forget the burden of proof and determine the case on the basis of which of the two one believes, or, conversely, on which of the two one does not believe: I believe the complainant therefore you are guilty, or I do not believe you and therefore you are guilty. However, our criminal justice system is not meant to be a simple credibility contest. Some people might present better than others, might be more articulate than others, or might be more persuasive than others. The law is not meant to impose criminal liability simply on the basis of who best presents or articulates his or her story. To say that criminal liability is a serious matter is an understatement. It is among the most serious of matters, having the potential to irreparably ruin lives. This is why more is expected from a criminal trial than a simple credibility contest.