The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following a search warrant execution.
The trial proceeded by agreed statement of facts with no witnesses called.
However, material discrepancies emerged between the agreed statement and the defence's anticipated evidence regarding the location of a firearm, where the accused slept, and how often he remained at the premises.
The defence sought to call evidence to clarify or contradict the agreed statement.
The court found irreconcilable conflicts between the agreed statement and the defence's new position, determined that defence counsel could not continue due to conflicts of interest, and declared a mistrial.
