This ruling addresses a question of law during a criminal trial for manslaughter, specifically whether the actions of one of the accused, Mr. Parr, constituted an attempted robbery or mere preparation.
The Crown argued for attempted robbery as a third route to manslaughter conviction.
The court, applying principles from R. v. Cline, R. v. Root, and R. v. Deutsch, found that Mr. Parr's actions, including covering his hand to avoid fingerprints and remaining with an accomplice in the building, were indicative of an attempted robbery, not mere preparation.
The ruling allows this theory to be included in the jury charge.
