4 total
The court accepted a joint submission sentencing an 18-year-old first-time offender to life imprisonment with 10 years of parole ineligibility for second degree murder.
The court sentenced Daniel Keefe to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for 10 years after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder.
The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the legal parameters for sentencing, and the positions of Crown and defence.
The court accepted a joint submission for the minimum period of parole ineligibility, citing the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and absence of aggravating factors.
Ancillary orders were also imposed, including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication orders.
Custody Accused acquitted
The decision concerns a defence motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of second degree murder.
The accused, Daniel Keefe, argued that the evidence could not support a finding of second degree murder and that only manslaughter should be left to the jury.
The court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony, the 911 call, and expert pathology evidence, and applied the legal test for a directed verdict.
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict of second degree murder, and dismissed the motion.
The court allowed the defence to play a video of an attack during cross-examination.
This direction addresses the admissibility and use of a third video clip in a criminal trial involving Daniel Keefe.
The court considers the relevance and potential prejudice of the video, which depicts an attack by Aiden Cunningham on a third party, and provides guidance on how the jury should be instructed if the attacker is not identified in evidence.
The court excluded a young, vulnerable accused's police statement because the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.
The decision addresses whether the statement made by Daniel Keefe to police was voluntary and whether his section 10(b) Charter rights were breached.
The court found that, although Keefe was advised of his rights and consulted counsel, the circumstances of his detention—including his youth, inexperience, anxiety, lack of medication, and not being told about the recording or use of his statement—meant the Crown did not prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.
The statement was excluded.