2 total
Certiorari granted to quash discharge at preliminary inquiry due to failure to consider similar fact evidence.
The Crown brought an application for mandamus with certiorari in aid to seek the committal of the respondents on charges relating to a tractor trailer robbery.
The preliminary inquiry judge had discharged the respondents, finding insufficient evidence to commit them to trial.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence, specifically the similar fact evidence linking the respondents to other similar robberies.
The court concluded that the similar fact evidence, combined with cell phone location evidence, provided sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude the respondents were parties to the robbery.
The application was granted and the matter was directed back to the preliminary justice to commit the respondents.
Failure to consider similar fact evidence at preliminary inquiry is jurisdictional error.
The Crown applied for mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on robbery-related charges arising from a tractor‑trailer robbery.
The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider admissible similar fact evidence from other robberies when determining whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial.
The court held that the failure to consider the whole of the evidence, including potentially admissible similar fact evidence, constituted a jurisdictional error.
After analyzing the similarities between several robberies and the linkage evidence, the court concluded the similar fact evidence was admissible and that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the accused were parties to the July 2 robbery.
The discharges were quashed and the matter was returned to the preliminary inquiry justice with directions to commit the accused to trial.
