The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence relating to possession of a restricted firearm.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the unreasonable verdict ground, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of possession.
However, the court allowed the appeal on count four (possession of a firearm obtained by crime), finding the trial judge incorrectly answered a jury question by stating that acquiring a firearm without a licence constitutes obtaining it by crime.
An acquittal was entered on count four.
The court declined to reduce the global sentence based on the acquittal but increased the pre-sentence custody credit by two months, finding the trial judge misunderstood the concept of earned remission in the federal system.
