The appellant, Frank Marrone, appealed his conviction for possession of powder cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
He raised three grounds: unreasonable verdict, conflict of interest of his original defence counsel, and reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two grounds, finding the verdict was reasonable and no actual impairment of representation due to the alleged conflict.
However, the Court found that the trial judge's repeated, unjustified criticisms and characterizations of defence counsel's conduct, including accusations of "lulling" the Crown and misrepresenting facts, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered for the possession for the purpose of trafficking charge.
