John Scandiffio

The accused was convicted of robbery using an imitation firearm.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application for a mistrial or to re-open the trial, arguing that the late disclosure of a 911 tape breached his section 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the application, finding that the evidence was not fresh, the defence lacked due diligence, and the evidence would not reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the trial.

The offenders were convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement following a home invasion where imitation firearms were used and young children were present.

The Crown sought sentences of 6 years for Brown and 8 years for Hersi.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed the offenders' youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

Brown, a first-time offender who constructively pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 2.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Hersi, who played a more significant role, had a prior record, and was convicted of uttering threats, was sentenced to a total of 4.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.