W. J. Scott Bell

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the Crown relied on letters written by the appellant in jail, which contained exculpatory statements but were admitted fabrications.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the law presumes any incriminating part of an accused's statement is likely to be true, while excuses carry less weight.

Additionally, the Crown failed to disclose a police interview with a witness who saw the victim's severed head at the apartment of the Crown's key witness.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the jury instruction was improper and the Crown's non-disclosure violated the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

The respondents were convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault following a drive-by shooting, based primarily on eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, finding the trial judge's reasons inadequate for failing to sufficiently analyze the frailties of the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the trial judge's reasons met the functional test set out in Sheppard, as they clearly explained the basis for accepting the identification evidence and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed his conviction for harassment, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated due to trial scheduling delays and restrictive bail conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the British Columbia Court of Appeal's disposition that warranted intervention, despite expressing concern over the length of the delay.