Pharrah Bacchus

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of a firearm while prohibited under s. 117.01.

Police executing a search warrant discovered a loaded .40 calibre handgun hidden in the accused’s residence while he was subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The court emphasized the serious public safety risks posed by illegal handgun possession and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

After granting enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719(3.1), the court imposed a global sentence reflecting three years for the firearm offence and a consecutive six months for breach of the prohibition order.

Probation and ancillary orders, including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order, were also imposed.

The accused sought leave to cross‑examine the police affiant who swore the Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant for an apartment where a loaded prohibited handgun was allegedly seized.

The proposed cross‑examination targeted details of the confidential informant’s information, the informant’s reliability, allegations of drug trafficking, corroboration details, and investigative steps taken after an earlier warrant refusal.

The court applied the Garofoli threshold and held that the accused failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the proposed questioning would assist in undermining the basis for the warrant.

Many of the proposed questions risked revealing confidential informant identity and were barred by near‑absolute informer privilege.

Leave to cross‑examine the affiant was therefore denied.

The accused, detained pending a jury trial on firearms-related charges, applied to sit at counsel table instead of the prisoner’s dock during trial.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities on whether an accused should be permitted to sit with counsel, noting the issue falls within the trial judge’s discretion balancing fair trial interests and courtroom security.

Evidence showed the accused had a criminal record including violence toward police, a history of breaching court orders, and documentation of an attempted escape from custody.

Security testimony indicated that seating the accused at counsel table would create monitoring difficulties and require additional security resources given the courtroom layout.

The court held that these security concerns and practical considerations outweighed any potential prejudice and ordered that the accused remain in the prisoner’s dock.