Alison Hurst

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, noting they were well-supported by the evidence, including a corroborating statement made by the complainant's sister.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding a custodial term was not unreasonable and declining to give weight to fresh evidence, which included an unsworn letter from the complainant asking for leniency.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences, including indecent assault, gross indecency, and sexual assault against two complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in defining consent, instructing on criminal records, admitting similar fact evidence, and handling prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown's concession that the conviction on one count was unreasonable and quashed it.

The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for eight robberies of financial institutions committed while on parole for the same offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's lengthy record and the circumstances of the offences.

A post-sentence report did not alter the fitness of the sentence, as much of the information was already before the trial judge.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for an offence involving a machete.

The trial judge made several errors regarding self-defence, including reversing the burden of proof.

However, the Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that the errors did not affect the verdict because the trial judge accepted the Crown's version of events, under which self-defence did not arise.

The appeal from conviction and disposition was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference involving a child complainant.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements made by the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found that while some statements were improperly admitted, the appellant suffered no prejudice as the trial judge did not rely on them in her reasons.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's decision to go to trial as an aggravating factor and by finding a risk of re-offending without supporting evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but the sentence appeal was allowed, substituting an eight-month jail term with a 15-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that he did not understand the potential consequences of his guilty pleas until he reviewed the complainant's victim impact statement, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his pleas.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the appellant failed to appreciate the nature of the charges or the sentencing consequences.

The desire to dispute comments in a victim impact statement unrelated to the essential elements of the offence was not a valid ground to set aside the pleas.

The young person appealed a finding of guilt for sexual assault against a classmate.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the burden of proof regarding credibility, improperly handled inconsistencies in the testimonies of the child witnesses, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the criminal burden of proof when assessing credibility and reasonably addressed the minor inconsistencies in the children's testimonies.

The court emphasized that children may not recall precise details, but this does not mean they misconceived the core events.

A young person appealed both a finding of guilt for sexual interference and the custodial disposition imposed after a cadet camping trip incident.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by treating an evidentiary burden as having shifted to the accused and by linking the accused's failure to meet that burden to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, contrary to the W.(D.) framework.

The court also accepted that it was an error to permit use of the accused's statement to police without first holding a voir dire on voluntariness.

A new trial was ordered, rendering the disposition appeal moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge held the complainant's evidence to a different standard and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the reliability of the appellant's evidence, addressed the frailties in the complainant's version of events, and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for perjury.

At trial, the Crown called two eyewitnesses, and the trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict based on the totality of the evidence without needing to be satisfied that both witnesses correctly identified the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with s. 133 of the Criminal Code, which requires corroboration of a single witness's evidence for a perjury conviction.

The failure to give this mandatory charge was a fatal error.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was acquitted of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault but convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public after stabbing the complainant during an altercation at a pool hall.

He appealed the conviction, arguing errors in the jury charge and inconsistent verdicts, and appealed the sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed and the verdicts were not inconsistent.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to time served, given the appellant's good conduct in the four years since the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence of two years less one day.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider evidence supporting his claim that he was an innocent bystander and erred in relying on the identification evidence of a specific witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the evidence was reasonable and supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the unprovoked, racially motivated, and gang-related machete attack warranted the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed convictions for break and enter, breaking out of a house, and failure to comply, as well as a three-year sentence.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in declining to exclude shoe evidence seized in breach of s. 8 of the Charter, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge’s s. 24(2) determination.

The court also rejected the unreasonable verdict argument because the eyewitness testimony was supported by footprint evidence and injuries consistent with the intruder’s escape.

The sentence appeal was dismissed after the court found no failure to consider the appellant’s background as an aboriginal offender and held the sentence fit given the criminal record.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching involving a 12-year-old complainant arising from a single alleged incident.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made several errors in evaluating credibility in a case turning centrally on whether the allegation was true or fabricated to explain romantic and sexual fantasy writings discovered by the complainant’s mother.

The court found error in the unsupported inference concerning the appellant’s alleged sterility, concern over the treatment of the medical evidence and defence theory, failure to address a significant prior inconsistent statement, and a misapprehension of comparative evidence about the events when the mother returned home.

The cumulative effect of those errors undermined confidence in the verdict and required a new trial.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence for a very serious aggravated assault, arguing the sentence was excessive, that insufficient weight was given to the absence of prior incarceration, and that the delayed parole eligibility order was unwarranted.

The court held that long-term incarceration for public protection was the only realistic option in light of the appellant’s major mental disorder, violent record, and limited rehabilitative prospects.

Although the trial judge was mistaken about the maximum sentence for aggravated assault, the Court of Appeal found no error in principle and no clearly excessive sentence.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, including the order delaying parole eligibility until half the sentence had been served.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal decision upholding a sexual assault conviction.

The only issue was whether the defence should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant about a prior sexual assault complaint made against another person.

Applying the rule that such collateral cross-examination is unavailable absent proof that the earlier complaint was recanted or demonstrably false, the court held the summary conviction appeal judge correctly found no basis to interfere.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.