Peter Connelly

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and other offences arising from the confinement and fatal beating of the deceased.

On appeal, they challenged the admission of a witness's prior statement to police under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, the jury instructions on the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, and several other aspects of the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the witness's statement was properly admitted under both the traditional past recollection recorded criteria and the principled approach to hearsay, and that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate and correct in law.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed himself on the law and that his findings of fact were supported by the evidence, making the convictions reasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misused evidence of after-the-fact conduct, failed to find consciousness of innocence from his offer to take a polygraph test, misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn, and misapprehended material evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds, finding the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The seven appellants were convicted of trafficking in heroin following an undercover police operation.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the 44.5-month delay between their charges and trial violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal agreed with respect to six of the appellants, finding the delay was largely systemic and caused prejudice, and ordered a stay of proceedings for those six.

The appeal of the seventh appellant, who was arrested much later, was dismissed on all grounds, including arguments regarding the destruction of police notes, jury instructions, and sentence fitness.

The respondents were convicted of attempted murder after an accomplice shot a convenience store clerk during an armed robbery.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the respondents could be convicted as parties under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code if they knew or ought to have known that the shooting was a probable consequence of the robbery.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the principles of fundamental justice require subjective foresight of death to convict a principal of attempted murder, the same minimum degree of mens rea is constitutionally required to convict a party.

The objective foreseeability component ('ought to have known') in s. 21(2) violates s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under s. 1 in cases where subjective foresight is constitutionally required.

The appeal was dismissed.