Daniel Medd

The appellant, who had a long history of mental illness, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for robbery and resisting arrest.

He appealed the finding, arguing it was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the psychiatric evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant was incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The NCRMD verdicts were set aside, a conviction was entered for robbery, and a new trial was ordered for resisting arrest.

The appellant was sentenced to one day in jail for the robbery, considering the 44 months he had already spent in custody.

The appellant appealed his 3-year sentence for break and enter and theft, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons and failed to consider his expressions of remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons were sufficient as the judge adopted the Crown's submissions and emphasized public protection.

The Court also found the appellant's remorse was not genuine, as he disputed factual findings and blamed the victims.