Theoni Kapetaneas

The accused, charged with aggravated sexual assault of his intimate partner, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process due to delayed disclosure regarding his seized cell phone, improper police access, and a breach of solicitor-client privilege in a second search warrant.

The court found no breach of privilege and that there was no improper police access.

However, the court identified serious omissions and false statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the second warrant, leading to it being set aside.

Furthermore, the court found the police investigation into the phone's continuity was unacceptably delayed and uncooperative.

While a stay was denied because the state's conduct did not compromise trial fairness, the court found the state's conduct warranted an exceptional order for costs against the Crown.

Duy Tam Nguyen was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm possession offences after police found significant amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, and two firearms in a "stash house" he operated.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record and the sophistication of the operation, and mitigating factors such as rehabilitative prospects and pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge applied the principle of totality to determine appropriate concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various counts, ultimately imposing a total sentence of seven years and eight months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample and a lifetime firearm prohibition.

This criminal trial concerned the identification of the shooter in a firearms incident.

The defendant, Mr. Lowe, was charged with discharging a handgun with intent to endanger life and possession of a handgun without a licence.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The Crown relied primarily on the eyewitness identification of a tenant, Nina Hodder, who knew the defendant.

Despite inconsistencies in her testimony regarding minor details and her initial uncertainty under cross-examination, the court found her recognition evidence reliable, supported by the immediate nature of her identification, her prior familiarity with the defendant, and compelling circumstantial evidence regarding the sequence of events leading to and following the shooting.