Elliot Behar

The young person appealed convictions for three robberies.

The Crown's case relied heavily on accomplice evidence, while the defence relied on the young person's testimony and exculpatory identification evidence from four witnesses who described the robber as a black male, whereas the young person is white.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on how the principle of reasonable doubt applied to the exculpatory identification evidence, similar to a W.D. instruction.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a four-year sentence for a non-residential break and enter.

The sentencing judge had heavily weighed the aggravating factor that the appellant recruited his 14-year-old daughter and her boyfriend to commit the offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while this was a serious aggravating factor, increasing the sentence by almost three years for it was too harsh.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to three years total, comprising 15 months of pre-trial custody credit and 21 months of new custody.