Adam Gordon Park Stubbs

Winston Walters pleaded guilty to five offences, including two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and breach of a release order.

The prosecution sought a global sentence of eight years, while the offender requested time served (credited as three years) with potential probation or a conditional sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender's background, pre-trial detention conditions, and established sentencing ranges for drug and firearm offences.

The court rejected the defence's argument that anti-Black racism mitigated the offender's blameworthiness due to a lack of specific evidence connecting systemic racism to his criminality.

The judge imposed a global sentence of eight years, comprising three years for the gun offence (credited as time served plus one day) and five years consecutive for the drug offences, with concurrent sentences for proceeds of crime and breach of bail.

The Crown sought to admit expert testimony on urban street gang slang to interpret intercepted communications in a murder trial.

While the defence conceded the general admissibility criteria, the judge raised concerns about the expert opining on the precise meaning of communications, which could trench on the ultimate issue.

Despite conflicting authorities, the judge permitted the expert to interpret the communications directly, as all counsel uniformly preferred this approach over hypotheticals.

This pre-trial application addressed the admissibility of expert testimony on urban street gangs, evidence of prior violent incidents, and YouTube videos in a murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce this evidence to establish motive related to inter-gang rivalry.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and a cost/benefit analysis, ruling that expert evidence on general gang phenomena and specific incidents was admissible, but with limitations on ultimate issues and hearsay.

Initially, some videos were admitted, but this ruling was reversed after the accused made admissions regarding gang existence and membership, as the videos' probative value was then outweighed by their prejudice.

A subsequent application by the Crown to re-admit videos during cross-examination of an accused was also refused, upholding the principle against compelling an accused to put character in issue.