Christopher R. Murphy

The appellant, convicted of multiple firearms offences, appealed his convictions on two grounds: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding forensic testing, and unreasonable verdicts due to the circumstantial evidence not eliminating the possibility of another person hiding the guns.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence was not material to the conviction.

It also found the verdicts were reasonable, as the inference of the appellant's knowledge and control over the hidden firearms was available given his operation of the studio and the nature of the hidden items.

The appeal was allowed in part, quashing the conviction on one count of careless storage of a firearm (Count 16) and entering an acquittal, but otherwise dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of various firearm and drug offences, as well as possession of the proceeds of crime, after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found firearms, drugs, and cash.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable as they relied on circumstantial evidence that failed to prove his knowledge and control over the contraband.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a prohibited device, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and control.

The conviction for possession of the proceeds of crime was upheld, and the global sentence was reduced to five years.

The appellant, Michael Lights, appealed convictions for dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from a high-speed red light violation causing a serious accident, where his passenger had been shot.

The appeal grounds included the unreasonableness of the driver identification, the trial judge's failure to address the necessity defence, and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's identification of the driver was reasonable, there was no air of reality to the necessity defence, and the sentence was fit.

The accused, suffering from schizophrenia and experiencing delusions, stabbed four strangers and brandished a knife at two others.

He was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offences.

The court found that the accused had the specific intent to kill for the attempted murder charge.

However, based on psychiatric evidence, the court concluded that the accused was incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong due to his mental disorder.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on all counts.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment against two women based entirely on his communications via Twitter.

The Crown alleged that the accused repeatedly communicated with the complainants, directly and indirectly, causing them to reasonably fear for their safety.

The court found that while the accused's tweets were voluminous and sometimes offensive, he did not know the complainants were harassed, nor was he reckless.

Furthermore, the court held that the complainants' fear for their safety was not reasonable in all the circumstances, given the public nature of Twitter and the lack of any threatening or sexual content in the tweets.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with two women, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly, via Twitter between August 1 and November 20, 2012.

The Crown alleged that the accused's tweets caused both complainants to reasonably fear for their safety.

The accused was also charged with violating a peace bond.

The court found that while the accused engaged in repeated communication and the complainants were harassed, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the complainants were harassed or that the complainants' fear for their safety was reasonable in all the circumstances.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with two counts of armed robbery and wearing a disguise with intent.

She admitted to being present during the robberies but raised the common law defence of duress, testifying that she was forced to participate by a violent co-accused who threatened her with serious bodily harm or death.

The court found the defendant's testimony credible, noting the co-accused's reputation for irrational violence and the defendant's reasonable fear that the threats would be carried out.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence of duress did not apply, and the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice granting the Crown's application for certiorari, which quashed a preliminary inquiry judge's order committing the appellant to stand trial for second degree murder and instead ordered him to stand trial for first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by weighing evidence and choosing between competing inferences regarding planning and deliberation.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence, including a document showing a grudge and the circumstances of the knife attack, to support an inference of planning and deliberation.

The appellant was found guilty of six counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown subsequently applied to have her found not criminally responsible (NCR).

On the day of the NCR hearing, the self-represented appellant was provided with a lengthy psychiatric report and requested a two-week adjournment to retain counsel.

The trial judge refused the adjournment, forcing the appellant to proceed unrepresented.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the refusal of the adjournment in these circumstances undermined the appearance of fairness and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to frailties in the eyewitness identification evidence.

The victim had identified the appellant from a photo array using a photograph taken five years prior to the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the frailties of the identification evidence.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, noting the victim's opportunity to observe the assailant, the photo array identification, corroborating cell phone records placing the appellant in the vicinity, and the appellant's failure to testify.

The appellant appealed his four-year sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by ignoring what amounted to a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing position was not a joint submission as there was no prior discussion or reliance by the accused when entering his plea.

The sentence was within the appropriate range and fit given the appellant's serious record for similar offences.

The appellant appealed a five-year sentence imposed for sexual offences against two young children.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by classifying the offences as hate crimes and by ignoring the principle of rehabilitation without evidence that the appellant was incapable of it.

While rejecting the proposed sentence of two years less a day as unfit, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to four years.