In our courts

By Steve Bilodeau

Criminal’s confession stands

Undercover officers pretended to be criminals interested in recruiting the accused into their organization. They offered to help him frame someone else for a murder they suspected him of committing and told him that they needed details from him about the killing, which he then provided. At trial, the accused argued that the confessions should be inadmissible since they were unreliable: he had a motive to lie to the undercover officer — he wanted to impress them. He also argued that he was induced by the assistance in framing the other person. The trial judge allowed the statements to go to the jury, and the jury convicted. The accused’s appeal to the Court of Appeal failed. The court said that these issues go to the ultimate reliability and weight that would be put on the statements, not whether they could be considered at all by the jury.

David George WYTYSHYN, from the Court of Appeal, November 13, 2002

Hard time for counterfeiting crook

The offender pleaded guilty to a number of offences involving false identification, counterfeit bills and false Government of Alberta cheques. He was using his computer to make false documents. In sentencing, the court considered deterrence to be the most important consideration. The offender was the main player in a planned crime that reflected significant effort. The motive was greed; the potential for profit unlimited. He was also sentenced for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, which holds a mandatory one-year consecutive sentence. Blending that into the total, the court imposed a sentence of three years, eight months.

Mitchell CHRISTOPHERSEN, from the Provincial Court, October 29, 2002

Conditional sentence upheld
for dangerous driver

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed for two counts of dangerous driving causing death and another causing bodily harm. Despite heavy fog on the highway the offender had been passing vehicles and had to swerve to avoid a first collision. Ultimately there was a crash, which killed two young passengers and seriously injured the driver of the other vehicle. The offender’s wife and child were also injured. He had a prior record for impaired driving and was on bail for “over .08” at the time of this offence. There was no evidence of alcohol in this case. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge correctly assessed the range for these circumstances to be 15-30 months. With that, and the Supreme Court’s express indication that conditional sentences are available for this offence, this sentence was not so low that the Court of Appeal could override it.

Curt Jason SAND, from the Court of Appeal, November 5, 2002

No excuse for drunk driving

The accused and her friend were drinking at a bar when the friend got into a fight. He was knocked down and hit his head. He wouldn’t respond to her and there was blood from the wound. The accused loaded him in the car and drove to the hospital. She got charged with impaired driving, but argued it was a matter of necessity that she drive him to hospital. As the law strictly limits the defence of necessity, the accused has to establish three elements: imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative, and proportionality. In this case, the court found it was not enough that the accused believed that the matter was one of imminent peril; a reasonable person would not have thought it was necessary to drive while drunk in that circumstance. As well, there were several legal alternatives open to her. Convicted.

Leslie Ann L’HIRONDELLE, from the Provincial Court, November 13, 2002

*For more interesting court cases see Criminal Prosecutions - Criminal Case Summaries.

[Previous Article]     [Cover Page]