Scott Reid

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for his alleged participation in a human smuggling operation.

The extradition judge discharged the respondent, finding insufficient evidence in the Record of the Case to warrant committal on charges of aiding unlawful entry and conspiracy.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the certified Record of the Case contained sufficient evidence, including witness identification of the respondent as a guide and driver, and a certified summary of evidence of an agreement to smuggle individuals.

The appeal was allowed and the respondent was committed for extradition.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges of robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by excluding certain medical evidence due to alleged non-disclosure, refusing to allow the Crown to admit the accused's statement to police, and failing to correct improper comments made by defence counsel during the jury address.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in excluding the medical evidence and defence counsel made improper comments regarding wrongful convictions and the Crown's integrity, these errors did not render the trial unfair or necessarily affect the verdict.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for aggravated assault and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to ensure he was represented by counsel and by inadequately assisting him as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant, an experienced criminal litigant, had clearly chosen to represent himself and that the trial judge had provided adequate and fair assistance throughout the trial.

The court also upheld the 4.5-year sentence as fit given the violent nature of the offence and the appellant's substantial criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to uttering a death threat and received a sentence of one day in prison, two years' probation, and credit for pre-trial custody.

He appealed his conviction, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his counsel coerced and misled him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant's claims incredible and concluding the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the custodial portion was moot and the sentencing judge made no error in accepting the joint submission.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, who had rejected a joint submission of 18 months less pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the joint submission was too low, but found the total sentence of 47 months was manifestly too high given the 27 months of credited pre-trial custody.

The Court concluded a three-year penitentiary term would have been appropriate and varied the sentence to time served.