The appellant challenged his convictions on the basis that the trial judge failed to give a Vetrovec warning and provided inadequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting his testimony.
The court held that no Vetrovec warning was essential on the facts, and although fuller reasons would have been preferable, the reasons were adequate in the circumstances and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The court accepted the Crown's concession that the Kienapple principle required a stay of the breaking and entering and committing theft charge in favour of a theft under $5,000 conviction, and a stay of the weapon dangerous charge.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted, the component sentences were varied accordingly, but the total sentence of five years and two months was upheld as fit.
