The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of assisting an offender contrary to s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.
The reviewing court considered whether there was at least a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence, including knowledge of the underlying offence, assistance to the principal offender, and specific intent to help the offender escape liability.
The applicant argued the circumstantial evidence supporting specific intent permitted innocent explanations and that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to properly apply the Shephard standard.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of the required intent and that the committing judge correctly applied the test of whether a properly instructed jury could convict.
The application to quash the committal was dismissed.
