L. Di Giulio

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, using an imitation firearm to commit robbery, and committing robbery while masked in a residential carjacking-style offence.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including the planned nature of the offence, use of imitation firearms to terrorize the victim, targeting of a vulnerable victim at her home, and the offender’s criminal record and lack of remorse.

The court also considered youth at the time of the offence and limited prior custody as mitigating factors, while prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court addressed credit for pre-sentence custody including time spent detained on unrelated charges later stayed, granting limited mitigation.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, resulting in a further 20½ months to serve after credit.

The accused was charged with robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit robbery, and use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accomplice and a videotaped confession by the accused.

The accused testified that he was high on marijuana, unaware of the robbery plan, and falsely confessed due to police threats.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the accomplice's evidence corroborated by the confession and physical evidence, and found the accused guilty on all charges.

The accused was arrested for an armed carjacking after police intercepted the stolen vehicle.

During the arrest, an officer grounded the accused, causing a minor cut to his chin, to secure a replica handgun tucked in his waistband.

The accused subsequently gave a videotaped statement to police.

On a confessional voir dire, the defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive police conduct, specifically the use of force during the arrest.

The court found the officer's use of force was reasonable and necessary given the dynamic and high-risk situation of an armed suspect.

The court concluded the accused's will was not overborne, and the statement was voluntary and admissible.