2 total
Appeal from hostage-taking convictions dismissed; trial delay and national security disclosure process did not violate Charter.
The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was convicted of hostage-taking for his role in capturing UN military observers in Bosnia in 1995 and using them as human shields against NATO air strikes.
On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by refusing to leave certain statutory defences with the jury, misdirecting on other defences, and refusing to stay the proceedings due to alleged Charter violations under ss. 7 and 11(b).
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the proposed defences, no error in the jury instructions, and that the complex national security disclosure process and trial delay did not violate the appellant's Charter rights.
Curative proviso applied to uphold break and enter conviction but not robbery conviction where evidence was circumstantial.
The appellants were convicted of armed robbery, use of a firearm, and break and enter.
The trial judge erred by admitting police officers' opinion evidence on videotape identification without a voir dire and by using the break and enter evidence as similar fact evidence for the robbery charges.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions using the curative proviso in s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the proviso was properly applied to the break and enter conviction because the trial judge made an independent identification.
However, the proviso could not save the robbery convictions for one appellant, as the remaining circumstantial evidence was not overwhelming.
The other appellant's appeal was dismissed because the admissible circumstantial evidence against him on the robbery charges was overwhelming.
