S. von Achten

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to her son and threatening to burn her daughter-in-law's business property.

Both threats arose from a single voicemail message left on August 25, 2023, following the accused's exclusion from her other son's funeral.

The accused admitted leaving the voicemail.

The defence argued the language was figurative, referring to civil litigation rather than literal threats.

The court found that a reasonable person would perceive the voicemail as containing threats of physical harm and property damage, and that the accused subjectively intended to intimidate and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest and breath demand.

The appellant contended the officer only had a 'suspicion' of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court reviewed the trial judge's findings, which relied on the severe unexplained collision, the appellant's disorientation, unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, and admission of consumption.

The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officer possessed both a subjective belief and objective grounds for impairment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after receiving a controlled delivery of over one kilogram of heroin from India.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the offender's significant role in the commercial scheme.

The offender was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment on all counts to be served concurrently, reduced to 10 years and 7 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant sought a mistrial after being convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming trial counsel prevented him from testifying and coerced him into signing written instructions declining to testify.

The court reviewed affidavit and viva voce evidence from the applicant and three defence lawyers involved in the case, assessing whether counsel overrode the applicant’s decision or exerted improper pressure.

The court found the applicant’s testimony not credible and accepted the evidence of counsel that the decision not to testify was the applicant’s informed and voluntary choice after receiving strong but legitimate legal advice.

The court held that the legal representation fell well within the range of competent counsel and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The offender was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession without a license after fleeing a crowded club where shots were fired.

The court considered the serious risk to the public, the offender's prior criminal record, and the breach of a prohibition order as aggravating factors, balanced against his youth and rehabilitative prospects.

A total sentence of 54 months was imposed, with credit for 27.5 months of pre-trial custody.