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, 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 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.