Peter Leask

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in a contract killing.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted telephone conversations.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the wiretap evidence should have been excluded because he was a 'known' person not named in the initial authorizations, and that the trial judge erred in denying his application for severance to compel a co-accused to testify.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not a 'known' person when the initial authorizations were obtained and that the denial of severance did not result in a miscarriage of justice as the co-accused's proposed evidence was of marginal probative value.

The appellant was convicted of offences arising from three separate gang home invasions.

The Crown alleged the appellant was involved in all three incidents, although membership in the gang rotated.

The trial judge instructed the jury that evidence admitted with respect to each incident was admissible in proving the guilt of the accused on the others.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred.

While similar fact evidence of group activities is admissible to identify a gang responsible for a crime, it cannot be used to identify a particular member without an additional link connecting the individual to each crime.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that quashed a direct indictment against the accused.

The accused had already been committed for trial after a preliminary inquiry.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Attorney General can prefer a direct indictment under s. 577 of the Criminal Code against an accused who could have been indicted through the ordinary process under s. 574(1)(a), which permitted his inclusion in a direct indictment with his co-accused.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the indictment reinstated.