S. Cressman

The accused was charged with break and enter, child abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference arising from the nighttime abduction of a child from a residence.

On a voir dire, the defence challenged the admissibility of DNA samples and two police statements, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The court found the accused was not psychologically detained during the initial police interview and that his statement and consent DNA sample were voluntary and informed.

The court also held there were no Charter breaches in relation to counsel rights or the right to silence during the later custodial interview.

Both the statements and DNA evidence were ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing a man in a bar.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code based on a long pattern of violent conduct involving unprovoked assaults and weapon use.

The court accepted psychiatric evidence that the offender suffered from schizophrenia and other disorders but found the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and a likelihood of future violence.

However, the court concluded that an indeterminate sentence was not justified because treatment compliance, particularly injectable medication and structured supervision, created a reasonable expectation that the public could be adequately protected.

The offender was sentenced to a determinate term followed by a long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.