Dr. Reghuvaran Kunjukrishnan

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

At trial, the defence called a psychiatrist who testified that the appellant's schizophrenia may have affected his appreciation of the risk of his driving.

On cross-examination, the Crown elicited hearsay evidence from the appellant's medical records regarding prior violent incidents to suggest the appellant had anger management issues.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the limited permissible use of this bad character evidence and its hearsay nature.

The Crown also invited the jury to engage in prohibited propensity reasoning during closing submissions.

The Court of Appeal found these non-directions fatal to the verdicts, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted criminally for shoplifting and uttering threats while off duty.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal.

On appeal, the Commission found the Hearing Officer committed a manifest error in principle by accepting the diagnosis of work-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but failing to consider it as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.

The uncontradicted medical evidence showed the appellant had recovered and his risk of reoffending was extremely low.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a one-year demotion to third-class constable with mandatory psychological monitoring.