Jennifer Stanton

The Crown applied for an order to cease the cross-examination of a vulnerable adult complainant with significant intellectual disabilities during a preliminary inquiry.

The complainant had suffered a brain injury in childhood resulting in cognitive abilities comparable to a four or five-year-old child.

After approximately 30-45 minutes of cross-examination, the complainant experienced an emotional breakdown and subsequently threatened self-harm and to run away.

The court ordered the immediate cessation of cross-examination, finding that the complainant was no longer an appropriate witness to be cross-examined and that continued questioning posed risks to her safety and security.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his 82-year-old mother and assault causing bodily harm in relation to his aunt.

During an argument at the front door of the family home, the accused pushed his aunt, which caused her to fall into his mother, resulting in his mother falling down concrete stairs.

His mother died in hospital several days later.

The Crown initially pursued a manslaughter charge based on transferred intent but later withdrew this charge after the pathologist's testimony.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against his mother, rejecting defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property.

The defendant, charged with child luring via Facebook Messenger, sought to exclude Facebook communications as evidence, alleging a Section 8 Charter violation.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine if the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the seized Facebook records, which included public profile information, private messages with the victim, and communications within a child exploitation group.

Applying the Marakah framework, the court found no reasonable expectation of privacy, citing the public nature of Facebook, the defendant's lack of control over the data, the victim's age, and the illegal nature of the communications.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offenders participated in a group assault on the victim following an altercation at a rave.

Triolo stabbed the victim in the chest, committing second-degree murder.

Lozada and Ramos participated in the group assault, making the victim vulnerable to the stabbing, and were convicted of manslaughter.

Triolo was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.

Lozada and Ramos were each sentenced to three years imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody.

During a trial for second-degree murder and manslaughter, the Crown sought to introduce twenty-two post-mortem photographs of the deceased through a forensic pathologist.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were highly prejudicial and of limited probative value.

The court balanced the probative value against the risk of reasoning prejudice, finding the photographs were relevant to the nature of the injuries and corroboration of eyewitnesses.

The court admitted twenty-one of the photographs, directing that three be presented in black and white to minimize any potential prejudice.

The defendant was charged with common assault and failing to comply with a probation order after allegedly pushing an elderly woman down stairs at a shopping mall.

The Crown presented testimony from the complainant and two independent witnesses who claimed the defendant pushed the complainant down the stairs.

The defendant testified that he made only incidental contact with the complainant's arm while gesturing to allow her to pass.

The court reviewed CCTV footage of the incident and found that the video evidence supported the defendant's account of accidental contact rather than an intentional assault.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant sought costs against the Crown following delays in disclosure and non-compliance with undertakings made at a Judicial Pre-Trial.

The applicant alleged that the Crown's failure to respond to six disclosure request letters, delayed notification to Legal Aid regarding appointment of independent counsel, and inconsistent information about occurrence reports and criminal records constituted conduct warranting a costs award.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the Crown's conduct was unsatisfactory, it did not rise to the level of recklessness, conscious indifference to duty, or a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards required to justify costs in criminal proceedings.