3 total
Assault convictions set aside due to inadequate reasons and misapplication of W.D.
The appellant sought leave to appeal convictions and sentence arising from allegations that he spat blood on correctional officers during a prison disturbance and uttered a death threat to one officer.
The appeal judge held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from W.D. regarding the assessment of an accused’s evidence and provided inadequate reasons linking accepted facts to the essential elements of assault.
In particular, the reasons did not address whether the spitting was intentional or explain the reliability of the complainants’ evidence in chaotic circumstances.
The conviction for uttering a threat was upheld, but the assault convictions were set aside due to insufficient reasons and improper credibility analysis.
A new trial was ordered on the assault counts.
Conviction and sentence appeals dismissed for armoured car theft involving breach of trust.
The appellant was convicted of theft and possession of stolen property after $120,000 went missing from an armoured car driven by her common-law partner.
She appealed her conviction and 12-month sentence, arguing errors in the jury charge regarding an unsavoury witness, the defence theory, reasonable doubt, and out-of-court statements, as well as seeking a conditional sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the offences involved a serious breach of trust and a conditional sentence would be unfit.
Appeal from conviction for sexual offences and indeterminate dangerous offender sentence dismissed.
The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual offences and his indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender.
He argued the trial judge erred in a Corbett application by not excluding all prior convictions for sexual offences, and by failing to put the defence of extreme intoxication to the jury.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the Corbett ruling and noting the lack of expert evidence to support a Daviault intoxication defence.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the expert psychiatric evidence offered little hope for treatment, justifying the indeterminate sentence.
