Michael J. Rombis

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the reasons could have been fuller, the trial judge directed his mind to the application of W.(D.).

The court noted that the foundation for the conviction was evident from the record and the defence position was utterly implausible.

The respondent was charged with failing to wear a seat belt after a police officer observed him unfastened while stopped at a red light.

The trial justice convicted him, but the provincial offences appeal judge quashed the conviction, finding that the respondent was not 'driving' while the vehicle was in park at the light.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that a purposive interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act requires a driver to wear a seat belt continuously from the time the vehicle is put in motion on the highway until it is parked in a position where it can be left unattended.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and the sentence imposed.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable because there was no evidence the complainant feared for her safety.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the complainant feared for her safety.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting a joint submission for a global sentence of six months custody.

The Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of the joint submission, noting the appellant's persistent behaviour and related criminal record made the joint submission contrary to the public interest.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.