Diana Polley

The accused was charged with three counts of second-degree murder for the killings of his partner and her two children.

The accused admitted to the killings but argued he lacked the requisite intent for murder due to a cocaine-induced psychosis.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused's actions and post-offence conduct inconsistent with a psychotic state.

The court found the accused had the specific intent for murder for all three victims and found him guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the complainant's neck was slashed with a knife at a party.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony from an intoxicated witness and DNA evidence linking the accused to the knife handle and the complainant to the blade.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and found the DNA evidence compelling corroboration of the eyewitness account.

The court also ruled that the expert DNA evidence was admissible despite the technologists who performed the tests not being called to testify.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant, charged jointly with a co-accused for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, brought a motion to sever his trial from that of his co-accused.

The applicant argued that a statement made by the co-accused to police, which placed the applicant at the scene, would cause prejudice if heard by a jury in a joint trial.

The court applied the factors for severance and concluded that a strong limiting instruction to the jury would be sufficient to prevent prejudice.

The application for severance was dismissed.