Alex Burns

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of the accused's statements to police, ante-mortem statements of the deceased, and character evidence.

The court found the accused's statements were voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The deceased's statement 'No, it's my brother' was admitted for state of mind but not for its truth.

The court also allowed some evidence of the deceased's prior violent acts to support the accused's self-defence claim, while permitting the Crown to lead balancing evidence of the accused's disposition for violence.

The appellant, a chronic bank robber, committed nine 'note pass' bank robberies while unlawfully at large on a temporary absence pass.

He was serving the remaining nine years of a previous 12-year sentence.

The sentencing judge imposed a 14-year sentence consecutive to the remaining nine years, resulting in a global sentence of 23 years.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the 14-year sentence was appropriate on its own, the global sentence of 23 years violated the totality principle and was unduly long and harsh.

The sentence was varied to 11 years concurrent, to be served consecutively to the remaining nine years, resulting in a global sentence of 20 years.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the judge erred in rejecting a joint submission and in imposing a disparate sentence compared to the co-accused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the sentencing judge gave sufficient reasons for departing from the joint submission and that the discrepancy in sentences was justified by differences in prior criminal records and levels of involvement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed the sentence imposed by the youth court.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to remove the period of closed and supervised custody and the final term of the probation order.