Sam Humphrey

The offender requested an earlier hearing date for a pending dangerous offender application, arguing the only remaining issue was credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court initially agreed to proceed by teleconference.

However, after reviewing the sentencing briefs, the Crown requested to cross-examine the offender and call institutional evidence regarding Covid-19 measures, prompting the defence to also request to call evidence.

The court concluded the matter was not capable of being heard by teleconference and adjourned the application to its previously scheduled return date.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code following the offender's convictions for multiple firearms and violence offences, including attempt to commit murder.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal history, which included a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, and found reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous offender.

The application for an assessment was granted.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The trial judge had excluded the breath evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach because the arresting officer failed to follow mandatory procedures for operating the approved screening device, thereby lacking reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the objective basis for the officer's belief was undermined by the failure to follow imperative instructions.