The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence.
He argued that he was arbitrarily detained, that identification evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and that the trial judge erred in assessing police identification evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and that the identification evidence was properly assessed.
However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, increasing the pre-trial custody credit from 1.5:1 to 2:1 because the offences preceded the Criminal Code amendments limiting such credit, resulting in a reduced net sentence.
