Keith Wright

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing because the trial judge failed to consider the long-term offender provisions, as required by the subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Johnson.

Additionally, the trial judge and expert witnesses had relied on findings from prior convictions that were later set aside by the Court of Appeal.

Although the dangerous offender finding was not unreasonable based solely on the predicate offences, the failure to consider the long-term offender provisions and the reliance on overturned convictions necessitated a new hearing.

The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful confinement, assault, and robbery after luring the complainant into a car, beating her, and robbing her.

She appealed her nine-month custodial sentence, arguing it created an unjustified disparity with her co-accused and that a conditional sentence should have been imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample basis for a harsher sentence given the appellant's leadership role, the extent of the violence she inflicted, her age relative to the co-accused, and her prior criminal record for violent offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault on a young male, arguing that the cumulative effect of several trial errors rendered the trial unfair.

The issues raised included the trial judge's handling of e-mails sent to the appellant by an excluded defence witness regarding his choice to affirm rather than swear an oath, the jury instructions on delayed disclosure and prior complaints, and the absence of a Vetrovec warning.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions, concluding that the trial was fair.

The appeal was dismissed.