The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.
At trial, the Crown cross-examined the appellant extensively about his knowledge of four other shootings in his neighbourhood to test his memory of when he heard about the shooting in this case.
The appellant appealed, arguing the cross-examination was unfair and amounted to trial by innuendo.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the cross-examination had very low probative value but high prejudicial effect, as it insinuated the appellant was involved in a violent subculture.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered, with the court declining to apply the curative proviso because the unfair cross-examination resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
