Matthew R. Gourlay

The applicant sought bail pending appeal of his convictions.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant was not a flight risk, but opposed bail on public interest grounds.

The applicant's appeal grounds relate to the trial judge's refusal to order disclosure of police investigations into two key police witnesses, one of whom was subsequently charged with perjury.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding sufficient merit in the appeal grounds to temporarily suspend enforcement of the sentence, and ordered the appeal to be case managed for expeditious resolution.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a conviction for criminal contempt arising from a sentencing submission that inadvertently misled the trial judge regarding her client's pre-sentence custody status.

The trial judge found that the actus reus of contempt was established and placed the burden on the appellant to purge the contempt with an explanation and apology, which he ultimately rejected.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to properly assess whether the Crown had proven the requisite mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and finding that the record did not support a finding of intentional or reckless conduct.

The appellant, who was 17 at the time of the offence, appealed his conviction for second degree murder arising from a robbery.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the defence of intoxication, the common sense inference, and the use of bad character evidence obtained during a 'Mr. Big' undercover operation.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury instructions, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the necessary legal principles regarding intoxication and intent.

The Court also held that the failure to give a standard limiting instruction on bad character evidence was not a reversible error given the defence's tactical reliance on that evidence to impugn the reliability of the appellant's confession.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence after pleading guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault, and three counts of breaching release orders.

He argued his guilty pleas were invalid because they were coerced and uninformed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed based on the trial record and fresh evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence at the expense of rehabilitation.

The sentence was varied to time served (nine months) followed by two years of probation.