The appellants appealed a Superior Court order quashing their discharge at a preliminary inquiry regarding a tractor trailer robbery.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and testimony from former co-accused implicating the appellants in other robberies.
The appellants argued the motion judge improperly treated evidence from other counts as similar fact evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly identified a jurisdictional error by the preliminary inquiry judge in failing to consider the evidence as a whole, and that the similarities between the robberies supported an inference that the same group committed them.
