Kim Schofield

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm and possession of marijuana.

He argued for the first time on appeal that his right to an interpreter under s 14 of the Charter was violated because he was not provided with a Patois interpreter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, finding the trial record demonstrated he understood the proceedings and could make himself understood.

However, the Court found the verdict on the gun charge unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence that the appellant knew the gun was under the passenger seat of a communally used car.

The Court also quashed the marijuana conviction, as the Crown conceded the provision creating the offence was of no force and effect at the time the appellant was charged.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a residential marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by categorically removing a conditional sentence as a possible sentence for this type of offence.

The court set aside the original sentence and, balancing the appellant's individual circumstances with the need for deterrence and denunciation, substituted a sentence of 90 days to be served intermittently, followed by the probation terms imposed by the trial judge.