P. Brauti

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking down a 19-year-old who had sold a fake Apple watch to his colleague.

The accused pursued the seller and tackled him to the ground after the colleague had already retrieved the money.

The court rejected the accused's defences under sections 25 (lawful arrest) and 35 (defence of property) of the Criminal Code, finding he did not intend to arrest the seller and the force used was excessive.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the takedown caused the victim's head bruise.

The accused was found not guilty of assault causing bodily harm, but guilty of the included offence of assault.

The accused, a police sergeant, was charged with theft over $5,000 and breach of trust after money and jewellery seized during a robbery investigation went missing from a temporary storage locker.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's failure to follow property storage directives and his estranged wife's discovery of a police evidence bag containing cash under his bed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, noting widespread non-compliance with property directives at the bureau and discrepancies in the cash found by the wife.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay criminal harassment and distribution of intimate images charges against the respondent due to alleged late and incomplete disclosure.

The trial judge found the Crown breached its disclosure obligations regarding police notes of conversations with the complainant, which the defence claimed were necessary to determine a potential conflict of interest.

On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the Crown breached its disclosure obligations, as the requested information was irrelevant and the defence was engaged in a fishing expedition.

The court also found the trial judge erred in his application of the stay of proceedings test and in finding a conflict of interest had crystallized.

The stay was lifted and a new trial ordered.

Five police officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice, and three of them were also convicted of perjury, arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent false memo book entries and testimony to conceal the timing of the search.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of three to four years, while the defence sought non-custodial sentences.

The court considered the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including the catastrophic impact of the prolonged 14-year investigation and proceedings on the officers' lives, careers, and health.

The court concluded that a penitentiary term was not warranted and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence (house arrest) for each offender.