The appellant was convicted of first degree murder at trial.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave additional instructions to the jury, in response to a specific question on being an accessory and being a party to an offence, that were incomplete and confusing.
The Court also noted, without deciding, the question whether a conviction for first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code could be based on the accused being a party to the offence within the meaning of s. 21(2).
The verdict of guilty was set aside and a new trial ordered.
