The appellant was convicted of firearm offences after an Instagram video showed him displaying what appeared to be a loaded handgun.
The physical weapon was never recovered.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's finding that the object was a real firearm was unreasonable, as the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the possibility it was an imitation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude the firearm was real based on the video evidence, including the appellant's act of removing the magazine to display ammunition in response to a question about whether the gun was real.
The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that while the trial judge made minor errors in summarizing the collateral immigration consequences, these errors did not impact the fitness of the sentence imposed.
