Shaun Nakatsuru

The appellant appealed jury convictions for importing cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and also appealed a five-year penitentiary sentence.

He argued errors in the restriction of cross-examination on voluntariness, Crown cross-examination concerning omissions in his statement, jury instructions regarding an admitted lie to police, and the denial of a Corbett application.

The court held that the Corbett ruling disclosed no error in principle and that, even assuming error on the remaining grounds, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred given the strength of the circumstantial case and the improbability of the defence evidence.

The conviction appeal and sentence appeal were both dismissed.

The appellants challenged robbery and firearms convictions arising from a violent home invasion robbery involving multiple victims, police surveillance, intercepted communications, and a getaway vehicle stop.

The Court of Appeal rejected all conviction grounds, holding that any errors in the Corbett rulings, party liability instruction, identification charge, co-conspirator instruction, and post-offence conduct instruction either did not occur or caused no prejudice.

The court found the evidence against both appellants strong, including surveillance, wiretap evidence, and surrounding circumstantial evidence.

On sentence, however, the court found unwarranted disparity with a co-accused’s sentence and held that one appellant should have received enhanced credit for pretrial custody.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentences were reduced to 11 years and 10 years respectively.

The appellant challenged his conviction on two grounds: the admission of expert evidence from a police detective and an alleged misapprehension of another police officer's evidence.

The court declined to articulate a general rule on admissibility, holding that such determinations must be made case by case under the governing appellate framework.

Because defence counsel had not objected at trial, there was no record to assess relevance or necessity, and the expert evidence did not appear to have unduly influenced the result.

The court also found no misapprehension of the officer's evidence and dismissed the appeal.