Peter W.S. Copeland

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by presiding over the trial after having conducted the pre-trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that while judges who conduct pre-trials should generally avoid conducting the trial, it is not a per se reversible error.

Absent clear objection from counsel and any prejudice, the trial judge's decision to seize herself with the trial was not an error in law.

The court also upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant followed the complainant, made threatening gestures, and rammed her vehicle.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop after striking a pedestrian and fleeing the scene.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the jury instructions were flawed.

The Crown appealed the 30-month sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the verdict was supported by the evidence, the jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the sentence was entitled to deference.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop after striking a pedestrian and fleeing the scene.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the jury instructions were flawed.

The Crown appealed the 30-month sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the verdict was supported by the evidence, the jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the sentence was entitled to deference.