William J. Parker

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for homicide.

He argued that the trial judge improperly highlighted a statement suggesting concealment of relevant evidence and failed to caution the jury against considering that statement in isolation, and further erred by not providing the jury with a written copy of the recharge.

The court held that the impugned statement was only a small part of a larger circumstantial case, that the charge properly instructed the jury to assess all of the evidence, and that the recharge procedure caused no unfairness because the corrections were minor and clearly explained.

The conviction appeal and sentence appeal were both dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal and appealed a six-year penitentiary sentence imposed after a conviction for aggravated assault.

He argued that the sentencing outcome was unfair because the Crown accepted he did not know his accomplice had a knife or intended to use it.

The court held that this distinction was irrelevant because the appellant was a principal in the planning and execution of a brutal assault and robbery, having brought and used a garrote and continued the attack after seeing the knife.

Although youth, guilty plea, cooperation with police, and a non-violent prior record were mitigating factors, the sentence was warranted by the gravity of the offence.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.