Kristin Bailey

The Court addressed whether Crown-requested police background checks of prospective jurors were permissible and what disclosure duties followed from that practice.

It held that limited criminal-record checks to assess juror eligibility are permissible, and that relevant information obtained for jury selection must be disclosed to the defence.

Applying the appellate non-disclosure framework, the Court found no reasonable possibility that disclosure failures changed jury composition.

The Court also held the impugned conduct did not meet the threshold for miscarriage of justice based on appearance of unfairness.

The appeals from conviction were dismissed.

The applicant sought to quash a committal for trial on a charge of attempted murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by inferring specific intent to kill from the circumstances of a violent assault involving strangulation, sexual assault, and severe beating.

The court applied the test of whether there was any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could infer the requisite intent.

Considering the nature of the attack, the severity of the injuries, the sequence of events, and the abandonment of the complainant while unconscious and seriously injured, the court held there was sufficient evidence from which intent to kill could be inferred.

The application was dismissed and the committal for trial on attempted murder was upheld.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry ruling that discharged the accused on a charge of first degree murder while committing one accused on second degree murder and the other on accessory after the fact.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by weighing evidence, preferring defence-favourable inferences, and failing to consider the evidence as a whole under s. 548(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court found the preliminary inquiry judge improperly assessed competing inferences and failed to recognize that the circumstantial evidence was capable of supporting planning and deliberation.

Evidence including the shooter’s approach, the execution-style killing, the presence of a getaway driver, and post-offence conduct could reasonably support committal for first degree murder.

The discharge order was quashed and the matter remitted with directions to commit both accused for trial on first degree murder.