COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - TONY BLAIR (Appellant)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, GOUDGE AND MACPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Tony Blair, in person for the appellant
Steve Coroza for the respondent
HEARD:
May 27, 2002
On appeal from the conviction dated November 24, 2000, and the sentence imposed on February 6, 2001, by Madam Justice Moira L. Caswell.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1[1] The appellant, Tony Blair, with the co-accused, Andrea Anderson, was charged with the offence of importing cocaine into Canada on June 14, 1999. He was tried before Madam Justice Caswell of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. On November 24, 2000, he was convicted and on February 6, 2001 he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years. The appellant appeals against his conviction. He has abandoned his appeal against sentence.
2[2] The appellant asserts that the trial judge essentially lumped him together with the co-accused. Once the trial judge found Ms. Anderson guilty, the conviction of the accused seemed to follow almost inevitably.
1[3] We disagree. The trial judge stated explicitly that “I will deal with the evidence concerning each accused separately”. She then followed through on this statement in the structure and contents of her reasons for judgment.
2[4] The appellant also contends that the trial judge erred in her labelling of his evidence as “suspect”. For example, he says that he had a good reason for not putting his real Toronto address on the customs declaration form, namely, to provide an address where relatives would be present in case his luggage was lost.
3[5] We disagree. The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence relating to the appellant, including favourable evidence such as the absence of the appellant’s fingerprints on the rum bottles containing the cocaine. She concluded that “I do not believe Mr. Blair, nor do I consider his story could reasonably be true” and “I am satisfied that the Crown has proved Mr. Blair’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even to the exacting standards of R. v. Lifchus and R. v. Starr.” We see no basis for disagreeing with these conclusions.
4[6] The appeal is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S. T. Goudge J.A.”
“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”