Jeffrey R. Schroeder

The appellants appealed an order refusing to quash their committal to stand trial for first degree murder.

They argued there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, pointing to an intervening act where the victim's colleague opened fire on them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that evidence of prior communication, arriving in a convoy, rushing the victim while armed, and the nature of the attack provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to infer planning and deliberation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari to quash his committal on a charge of first-degree murder.

He conceded there was evidence for second-degree murder but argued there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was some circumstantial evidence—including animus, threats, preparation, luring to an ambush, and obtaining a gun—capable of supporting the preliminary justice's conclusion that the murder was planned and deliberate.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of first-degree murder.

The appellant conceded there was evidence for second-degree murder but argued there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was some evidence, including animus, threats, and luring the victim to an ambush, capable of supporting the inference of planning and deliberation.

The appellant appealed an order committing him for extradition to the United States on charges of conspiracy and attempt to launder proceeds of crime obtained by trafficking in a controlled substance.

The Court of Appeal found that while the evidence supported an inference that the cash was from illicit activity, there was no evidence specifically linking it to drug trafficking.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the specific offence named in the Authority to Proceed was mere surplusage, holding that section 29(1) of the Extradition Act requires evidence justifying committal for the specific offence set out.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant discharged.