Break and enter

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

On the sentence appeal, the parties agreed the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's criminal record.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the fitness of the sentence based on the actual record, which included 11 prior convictions for break and enter over 25 years.

The Court concluded the total sentence of 820 days was fit and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was tried on charges arising from a residential break and enter proved entirely by circumstantial evidence.

The court held that the surveillance evidence, tracking data, association with co-actors, counter-surveillance driving, and video evidence placing the accused at the refuge location shortly after the offence established that he was the fourth participant in the Mazda used during the offence.

Applying the rule that guilt must be the only reasonable inference on circumstantial evidence, the court rejected alternative explanations.

The accused was found guilty of break, enter and theft, and of possession of property obtained by crime on a theory of joint possession.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon, challenging the adequacy of the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority finding that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and contained no error in applying the law to the facts.

Fish J. dissented, arguing that the trial judge's inferences regarding identification did not flow logically from the evidence.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had set aside the accused's convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and break, enter and robbery on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal.