The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm-related offences (robbery, aggravated assault, prohibited possession) and sought leave to appeal his 9-year sentence.
The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge erred by not conducting a fulsome post-verdict inquiry into a juror's comments, leading to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination that the record was sufficient and that the strong presumption of juror impartiality had not been rebutted.
The sentence appeal argued that the 9-year sentence was unfit and disproportionate to co-accused sentences.
The Court granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the seriousness of the home invasion, the appellant's role (shooting the victim, using a handgun, breach of prohibition), and the justified distinctions from co-accused who pleaded guilty and had lesser roles.