Apple Newton-Smith

The appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual assault and four counts of administering a stupefying substance, receiving a global sentence equivalent to 10 years imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a breach of trust and that the sentence was outside the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide the breach of trust issue because the sentence was entirely fit given the significant aggravating features, including the 15-year span, multiple victims, and significant planning.

The appellant was convicted of offences arising out of a home invasion.

At trial, two witnesses who had previously given videotaped statements to the police implicating the appellant recanted those portions of their statements.

The trial judge admitted the prior inconsistent statements for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the videotaping of the statements and the availability of the declarants for cross-examination provided sufficient threshold reliability, despite the absence of an oath or a KGB warning.