Dr. Elspeth Lindsay

A young person was tried for multiple offences, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, after robbing a taxi driver and shooting him in the leg with a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused admitted to the robbery but claimed the firearm discharged accidentally due to intoxication and a malfunction.

The court rejected the accident defence, finding the accused intentionally pointed and fired the weapon, resulting in convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempted murder, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, as the shot was aimed at the lower body through a seat.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder in a gang-related shooting.

At their joint trial, they advanced cut-throat defences, each blaming the other.

On appeal, they raised numerous grounds relating to the jury charge, including instructions on eyewitness description evidence, bad character evidence, party liability, and the W.D. framework.

They also challenged the admission of gang expert opinion evidence that relied on confidential informants and the trial judge's refusal to review the informant files.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The Crown sought certiorari with mandamus in aid after a preliminary inquiry judge discharged the respondents on break and enter and related charges arising from a bank vault robbery.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing exculpatory against inculpatory inferences in a circumstantial case and by failing to consider the cumulative inculpatory inferences available to the Crown.

Applying the committal test under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code and the governing authorities on preliminary inquiries, the court found committal inevitable on the break and enter counts for both respondents and on the possession of break-in instruments count for one respondent only.

Certiorari with mandamus in aid was granted accordingly.