Lily and Joe were in a long-term relationship. They had lived for 11 years and were the parents of a young daughter. The relationship has been deteriorating as the parties have been struggling financially and are facing income uncertainty. Lily also believes that Joe may be cheating on her as he has been staying out late and she is having difficulty reaching him at work. On the night in question, Lily drove by Joe's workplace and did not see his car in the parking lot. As she drove down the street she spotted Joe walking with his arm around a young woman. Lily was furious. She raced toward the couple with her car narrowly missing the two. She creamed out the window that next time she will not miss them and sped off. Both Joe and the young woman were frightened by Lily's actions and called the police. The police attended at the scene and eventually charge Lily with uttering death threats. Analyze mens rea and the actus reus of section 264.1 of the Criminal Code (Canada) At trial, the judge convicted Lily specifically making reference to the fact that she did not believe Lily's version of the events. Describe what is wrong with the judge's line of reasoning with specific reference to R v W(D). Lily is unhappy with the conviction and wants to appeal. You have tried to explain the appeal courts will show deference to a trial court. What does that mean