The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery with a firearm, after robbing a taxi driver and a pedestrian using a BB gun.
The accused admitted to the acts but raised the defence of extreme intoxication due to a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.
The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused possessed the requisite intent and that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code barred the defence of extreme self-induced intoxication.
However, the court found that the BB gun was broken and could not be readily adapted to fire, meaning it did not meet the definition of a 'firearm' under section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the firearm-specific offences but convicted of two counts of robbery.
