Kerry P. Evans

Ricky DeSousa was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of evading police, and pleaded guilty to eight counts of robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of robbery victims, use of a weapon, injuries to victims, and the fact that aggravated assault victims were police officers.

Mitigating factors included DeSousa's guilty plea to robberies, triable issues on other counts, and community support for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, consisting of eight years consecutive for the robberies and five years concurrent for the aggravated assault and evasion of police, with the five-year sentence to be served consecutively to the eight-year robbery sentence.

Pre-trial custody credit of eight years and eleven months was applied, including an additional 90 days for harsh lockdown conditions.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample were also made.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of police officers, failing to stop his vehicle during a police pursuit, and aggravated assault of a peace officer, following a violent vehicular takedown.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, but sufficient to establish the lesser included offence of aggravated assault, based on objective foresight of harm.

The accused was also found guilty of evading police, as the court inferred he knew he was surrounded by officers.

The charge of aggravated assault of a peace officer was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three expert witnesses for an upcoming jury trial involving charges of attempted murder and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a police pursuit and 'rolling block' takedown.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks to assess the admissibility of the proposed experts.

The court denied the qualification of a ballistics expert, finding the evidence unnecessary and potentially distracting.

However, the court permitted the defence to call an expert in police training and use of force, as well as an expert in accident reconstruction, concluding that their testimony would assist the jury in understanding the chaotic scene and the context of the police actions.