The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin.
The principal evidence against them was the testimony of an accomplice.
The trial judge instructed the jury on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence and pointed out evidence capable of being corroborative.
The appellants appealed, arguing the supporting evidence was too remote.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, abrogating the strict and highly technical common law rules regarding accomplice corroboration derived from R. v. Baskerville.
The Court held that there is no special category for accomplices and that trial judges should use a common sense approach, giving a clear and sharp warning only when the credit of a particular witness warrants it.
