Gordon Cudjoe

The accused, an 18-year-old first-time adult offender, was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and firearms offences following a drug robbery where a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring the victim.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 to 10 years, arguing the 5-year mandatory minimum for robbery with a restricted firearm applied.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the firearm was restricted or prohibited, applying the 4-year minimum instead.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days, reduced to 2 years less a day after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

The 18-year-old accused was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and firearm offences following a drug robbery where a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring the victim.

The court determined that the Crown failed to prove the firearm was a restricted or prohibited weapon, meaning the four-year mandatory minimum applied rather than the five-year minimum.

Considering the accused's youth, minor record, and the jump principle, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days, which, after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, resulted in a remaining sentence of 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years of probation.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to attend court contrary to s. 145(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused had a lawful excuse for failing to attend a scheduled court appearance after admitting the actus reus of the offence.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to whether his retained counsel had appeared with him on an earlier date, which allegedly affected the credibility assessment.

The appeal court acknowledged that a misapprehension occurred but held that it related to a collateral issue and did not play an essential role in the trial judge’s reasoning process.

The conviction and sentence appeals were therefore dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a planned drug robbery during which the complainant was shot in the neck.

The court found that the accused and a co‑participant jointly planned the robbery, with the co‑participant initially brandishing a firearm while the accused acted as backup.

During an ensuing struggle, the accused struck the complainant with the gun, dragged him from his vehicle, and continued assaulting him, during which the firearm discharged and caused serious injuries.

The court held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the principal offender in the aggravated assault and a joint principal in the armed robbery, though the discharge of the firearm was likely accidental.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and pointing a firearm, but convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and several firearm possession offences.

The Crown sought judicial review by certiorari of a preliminary inquiry decision discharging multiple accused charged with murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder arising from a fatal shooting outside a nightclub.

The preliminary inquiry judge concluded there was insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the handgun used in the shooting and discharged all accused.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by choosing between competing inferences and weighing the evidence beyond the permissible “limited weighing” required for circumstantial cases under R. v. Arcuri.

The evidence supported reasonable inferences of motive, means, opportunity, and a joint enterprise to ambush the victims, and the judge improperly preferred an inference favourable to the accused.

The discharges were therefore quashed and the accused were ordered committed to stand trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction and nine-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and findings of fact regarding the admissibility of a statement.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the nine-month jail term was deemed appropriate and within the range for the offence.