David R. Newton

The accused was charged with sexual assault after he and a co-accused provided alcohol and drugs to two underage girls and took them to a hotel.

The complainant was highly intoxicated and incapacitated.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the complainant was fine and consented.

Applying the test for capacity to consent, the court found the complainant was incapable of consenting due to intoxication.

The court also found no air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, as the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder, pointing a firearm, and unauthorized possession of firearms after fatally shooting a man who had aggressively approached his home following a series of altercations.

The victim, who was highly intoxicated and angry, had repeatedly rammed the accused's vehicle with his truck and approached the accused's door brandishing a stick.

The accused, who was inside his home, fired a single shot through the door, killing the victim.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence, resulting in an acquittal on the murder and pointing a firearm charges.

The accused was found guilty of unauthorized possession of firearms.

In a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown applied to admit statements made by the accused to police, while the accused sought to exclude them under the Charter.

The accused argued his statements were involuntary due to police inducements, his right to counsel was breached because his consulted lawyer had an unknown conflict of interest, and he was arbitrarily detained at the police station after a warrant of remand was signed.

The court found the statements were voluntary, the right to counsel was not breached as the state played no role in the conflict, and although the continued detention at the police station was arbitrary, the breach was not serious enough to warrant exclusion under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing a demand for a breath sample.

Following closing arguments at trial, the matter was adjourned for judgment.

After the unrepresented appellant left the courthouse, the Crown requested and was granted leave to re-address the court in his absence.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge but also made submissions regarding the strength of the evidence and the grounds for arrest, with which the trial judge agreed.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the appellant's right to a fair trial was fatally compromised by these ex parte submissions.

The curative proviso did not apply as the appellant suffered prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.