Stephen Joseph Donoghue

The applicant, convicted of first‑degree murder and serving life imprisonment with 25 years’ parole ineligibility, sought a reduction of the ineligibility period under the “faint hope” provisions of s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted the initial judicial screening required under s. 745.61 to determine whether the application demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success before a jury.

The materials showed exceptional institutional conduct, rehabilitation efforts, and declining health, though the Crown challenged the applicant’s credibility and role in planning the murder.

Weighing the statutory factors including character, conduct during incarceration, the nature of the offence, and the victim impact evidence, the court found the threshold test met.

The application was permitted to proceed to a jury hearing.

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide breath samples under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address significant inconsistencies in the evidence of police witnesses concerning signs of impairment and the suitability of a breath sample accepted by the breathalyser machine.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons did not explain how credibility conflicts among the officers were resolved, particularly regarding the arresting officer’s observations and the breath technician’s rejection of an accepted sample.

Applying the functional approach to adequacy of reasons articulated in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court concluded that the reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review.

A new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after striking a taxi driver with a metal rod and kicking him while he lay unconscious after being punched by a co‑accused.

The defence claimed the taxi driver attacked first with a baton and that the accused neither struck nor kicked the victim.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony and that of the co‑accused, finding it inconsistent with physical evidence and the credible testimony of three independent eyewitnesses.

The court held that hitting the victim on the head with a metal rod and kicking him while unconscious created objectively foreseeable bodily harm and formed part of a joint assault with the co‑accused.

Although the permanent loss of smell was attributed to the co‑accused’s punch, the accused’s participation made him a party to the aggravated assault under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.