A man charged with assault for allegedly throwing an unknown liquid at corrections officers in 2024 has been found not guilty, as Judge Richard Browning found the Crown had not proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Adam Troy Mann appeared by video in Surrey provincial court Thursday (April 30) in an orange prison crewneck and pants from a correctional facility where he was being held. He smiled and nodded his head after Browning said he was not guilty. Besides acknowledging that he could hear the court, he did not speak during the hearing.
Mann was charged with two counts of assault in connection with a July 13, 2024 incident at the Surrey pretrial centre.
He was in custody at the time of the alleged assault for a second-degree murder charge in the death of Surrey’s Tori Dunn and an unrelated aggravated assault charge in connection with a May 2024 stabbing of a woman in Whalley.
The trial in Dunn’s death is scheduled for October 2026.
During the April 13, 2026 assault trial, the court heard testimony that Mann had allegedly thrown liquid through the top of his cell door at corrections officers who were attempting to install a splash guard door cover on Mann’s cell door. The cover was intended to fill any gaps and prevent liquid from entering the common area.
Browning stated during the decision hearing at Surrey provincial court Thursday (April 30) that the Crown had not proved Mann’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and found most of the evidence presented at the one-day trial circumstantial, as no one had seen him throw the liquid.
“All three witnesses testified to Mr. Mann throwing a fluid. However, I find that their evidence on this point is a conclusion, rather than based on observations,” said Browning.
As Mann had covered the window on the door of his cell, two of the officers could not see inside it. A female officer told the court she could see Mann but did not see him throw anything, but testified that he appeared agitated and was yelling.
An officer stated that “Mr. Mann was angry, calling his supervisor the N word, and threatened to sh**-bomb them if they didn’t do what he wanted.”
The unit supervisor testified that in the weeks leading up to the incident, there had been issues with Mann, as he did not clean his cell, and it had flooded over several days. This was why a cover was being installed on his cell door. He was also being held in a confinement unit in the pretrial centre.
On the morning of the incident, the officers stated that they had noticed a puddle in front of Mann’s cell, which one officer thought could have been “bodily fluids,” as it appeared yellow in colour. The puddle was not cleaned up before the alleged incident.
In preparation for installing the door covering, one of the officers held a plastic shield for protection while the unit supervisor held the door covering. As they got close to the cell door, the officer testified that it was then that Mann had allegedly thrown the liquid through the top of the cell door, and it had landed on the officers.
Browning noted some inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony to the court and to the police. For instance, the unit supervisor had told police that the liquid had hit the ceiling first before hitting him. The officer said he probably did not provide the police with accurate information, as he was still “shaken” when he gave his statement.
One of the officers reported that Mann’s cell had smelled of toilet water and urine, but he had originally told police it smelled of feces, as the female officer could not tell whether it smelled or what colour it was since the whole floor of the pretrial centre already had a “strong odour.”
The source of the unknown liquid was not proven in court, but Mann’s cell did have a toilet.
Browning found that the Crown had not presented evidence regarding the state of the inside of Mann’s cell or the source of the puddle outside the cell.
“An alternative inference may be drawn from both evidence and the absence of evidence. Here, there is both evidence of a liquid proximate to Mr. Mann’s cell prior to the alleged offences, and an absence of evidence as to its source or the condition of Mr. Mann’s cell,” Browning said. “The inference that Mr. Mann threw some unknown liquid at the complaints is a reasonable one. I believe that this is what probably occurred on July 13, 2024.”
Defence attorney Casey St. German had suggested during the trial that the unknown liquid could have been caused by flooding or by a leak due to mechanical failure.
Browning said that St. Germain’s alternative explanation, though less likely on the evidence, was a reasonable alternative inference to be drawn in the result.
As a result, “I find the Crown has not met the burden of proving Mr. Mann directly or indirectly applied force,” on the corrections officers. Since these are the “essential elements of the offence,” the offences have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I find Mr. Mann not guilty of the charges,” Browning said.
Mann remains in custody as he awaits trial on the murder charge in Dunn’s death.