Glenn Brotherston

Two young persons were tried for kidnapping for ransom using a firearm.

One of the accused was also charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The victim, who was uncooperative at trial, had provided a detailed video-taped statement to police shortly after his release.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and admitted portions of the victim's statement for its truth, finding substantial corroborative evidence of the kidnapping, the use of firearms, and the first accused's identity as a perpetrator.

The first accused was found guilty of kidnapping, firearms offences, drug trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The second accused was acquitted, as the fingerprint evidence and the victim's description were insufficient to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

In a trial for possession of a loaded firearm, the court ruled on several pre-trial motions and a motion for a directed verdict.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior possession of the same firearm, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also allowed the Crown to ask an eye-witness for an in-dock identification and admitted crime scene photographs verified by other officers.

A directed verdict of acquittal was granted for an obstructing justice charge because providing a false name did not actually obstruct the arresting officer.

However, the motion for a directed verdict on the firearm possession charges was dismissed, as the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The accused applied for severance from a multi-accused drug trafficking indictment and sought a judge-alone trial rather than a jury trial proceeding jointly with co-accused.

He argued prejudice arising from the loss of his chosen mode of trial, trial delay, financial hardship due to the anticipated length of a joint trial, and potential “guilt by association.” The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code and leading authorities addressing the presumption in favour of joint trials where accused are alleged to have acted in concert.

The court found an evidentiary nexus between the accused and co-accused through the alleged drug trafficking network and concluded that the asserted prejudice could be managed through jury instructions and procedural accommodations.

The applicant failed to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice.