The appellant appealed convictions arising from an incident involving two taxi drivers, arguing identity and challenging the legal basis for certain convictions.
The court rejected the identity argument and upheld the robbery conviction, finding the injury to the first driver was sufficient to constitute bodily harm and that robbery under s. 343(c) did not require an actual theft.
Applying the Kienapple rule, the court stayed the assault causing bodily harm conviction as an included offence of robbery arising from the same delict.
The court also quashed the conviction for personating a police officer because that summary conviction offence had been improperly joined and tried in superior court following a preliminary inquiry.
The remaining conviction appeals were dismissed.
