The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences arising from an intended armed robbery.
He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on his evidence regarding an innocent association, failing to instruct the jury on the knowledge element of the section 95 charge (knowing the gun was loaded), and failing to stay the section 94 conviction based on the Kienapple principle.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that any error regarding the innocent association evidence was of no consequence, the omission of the knowledge element caused no substantial wrong given the context of an intended armed robbery, and the trial judge correctly concluded that Kienapple did not apply.
