Hugh O’Connell

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for knowingly supplying a handgun and ammunition to a member of the Hells' Angels while under a firearms prohibition order.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence grossly inadequate and an error in principle for not making the sentence for the section 117.01 offence consecutive.

Taking into account the respondent's guilty plea, lack of prior convictions, and the hardship of re-incarceration, the Court varied the sentence to a total of 20 months consecutive to the 18 months of pre-trial custody credit.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for commercial-level marijuana trafficking.

They argued that a police stop violated their s. 9 Charter rights and that the resulting evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal assumed a s. 9 breach but declined to exclude the evidence, finding the breach was not serious, the privacy expectation was minimal, and the police did not act in bad faith.

The court also upheld the six-month custodial sentences, rejecting the appellants' argument for conditional sentences.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty on the fifth day of trial to possession of cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.

He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment, plus 7 months' credit for restrictive pre-sentence bail.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was unduly harsh and overlooked his rehabilitation and positive antecedents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the large quantity of drugs involved, which included over 769 grams of cocaine and 2000 ecstasy pills.

The appellant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a narcotic, based entirely on the evidence of a single witness.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant on three charges of sexual assault and another trafficking charge, finding that the same witness had deliberately fabricated those allegations to avoid paying a debt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the conviction was unreasonable, as there was no clear or logical basis for the trial judge to accept the witness's evidence on the one charge after rejecting the rest of her testimony as fabricated.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.