The appellant appealed his robbery convictions, arguing they were unreasonable because the Crown's case relied entirely on an unrecorded inculpatory statement made to police while in custody.
The appellant contended that any conviction based exclusively on an unrecorded statement should be presumptively unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal rejected this per se rule, holding that while a proper recording assists the trier of fact, its absence does not automatically render a statement inadmissible or a conviction unreasonable.
The court also dismissed arguments regarding the trial judge's failure to give specific jury cautions about the unrecorded statement and hearsay evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
