Phil Patterson

The accused pleaded guilty to break and enter, robbery, forcible confinement, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a violent home invasion.

The Crown sought an eight-year penitentiary sentence, while defence counsel argued for four years, emphasizing the accused's lesser involvement compared to co-accused, youth, and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the accused to five years less pre-trial custody, finding that while the offence was serious and warranted substantial denunciation and deterrence, the accused's age, early guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and good rehabilitation prospects, combined with his secondary role in the violence, distinguished the case from more serious home invasion precedents.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of impaired operation under s. 253 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge accepted the possibility that the accused’s intoxication may have resulted from involuntary consumption after an intervening act, such as someone placing a substance into his unattended drink.

The Crown argued the trial judge engaged in speculation, misapprehended evidence, and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the principles from R. v. King and R. v. W.D., and that the accused only needed to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntary consumption.

The acquittal was therefore entitled to deference and the appeal was dismissed.