James Carlisle

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences, as well as a S.O.I.R.A. order.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, and a tape-recorded conversation was inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the tape was admissible and the appellant's responses were inculpatory, except for one count where the Crown conceded there was no evidence.

The appeal from sentence and the S.O.I.R.A. order were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender following convictions for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault, arguing he should have been designated a long-term offender.

He submitted the trial judge erred by restricting his expert's testimony and rejecting the expert's opinion on his prospects for controlling his alcoholism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly qualified the expert and was entitled to prefer the Crown expert's evidence that the appellant's prospects for treatment were extremely poor.

The appellant appealed a four-year sentence for a non-residential break and enter.

The sentencing judge had heavily weighed the aggravating factor that the appellant recruited his 14-year-old daughter and her boyfriend to commit the offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while this was a serious aggravating factor, increasing the sentence by almost three years for it was too harsh.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to three years total, comprising 15 months of pre-trial custody credit and 21 months of new custody.

The appellant pleaded guilty to kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a probation order.

He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, credited with pre-sentence custody, and designated a long-term offender with an eight-year supervision period.

He appealed the long-term offender designation and the length of the sentence and supervision period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's conclusion that the appellant's past behaviour constituted the necessary pattern for the designation, and holding that the sentence, while at the high end, was not erroneous.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing fresh evidence regarding his severe health problems and ineligibility for day parole.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the health issues did not render the sentence unfit and noting that the appellant would likely be deported early, freeing him from the sentence entirely.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed his discharge at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reviewing judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded their jurisdiction by weighing the defence of 'reasonable excuse', which falls outside the essential elements of the offence.

The appeal was dismissed, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts of break and enter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions on counts one and four, finding it was open to the trial judge to apply the doctrine of recent possession given the unique combination of stolen items (a marked two-dollar bill and 88-cent stamps) found on the appellant.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on counts two and three, setting aside the convictions and entering acquittals, as there was no evidence linking the appellant to those specific break-ins other than proximity, and there was exculpatory evidence regarding the intruder's shoes.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, threatening death, unlawful confinement, and breach of undertaking, as well as his designation as a long-term offender.

The offences were committed against his wife over an eight-day period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence and the verdict was not unreasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the long-term offender designation was well founded on evidence of a pattern of spousal abuse and a substantial risk of re-offending.