The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a prohibited weapon.
During deliberations, the jury requested a playback of a specific portion of the appellant's testimony.
The trial judge refused the request, expressing confusion and instructing the jury to continue discussing.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to respond directly to the jury's question and denying them a review of evidence central to the appellant's credibility.
The convictions for the cocaine offences were set aside and a new trial was ordered.