B.C. COURT OF APPEAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRIMINAL 2002

• 2002 BCCA 703 R. v. Khan & Ali
  Having pleaded guilty to having defrauded the victims of some $2.2 million by a carefully devised scheme which went on for over a year, the accused now appeal from the sentence of three years in the case of the Mr. Khan and two years less a day in the case of Mr. Ali. Sentence appeals dismissed. The evidence established circumstances which justified the disparity in sentence and the refusal of the sentencing judge, having imposed the two years less a day sentence on Mr. Ali, to make that a conditional sentence.
• 2002 BCCA 699 R. v. Ede
  The court allowed an appeal from convictions for gross indecency, indecent assault, and sexual assault because of flaws in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on credibility.
• 2002 BCCA 694 R. v. Churchill
  Appeal from dismissal of summary conviction appeal from conviction of dangerous driving. The summary conviction appeal judge held that the conviction was “reasonable”, although the trial judge erred in referring to evidence of alcohol consumption after acquitting the appellant of charges of drinking and driving. The appellant argued that the appeal judge should have considered whether the verdict was inevitable. Held: Appeal dismissed. The summary conviction appeal judge should have considered whether the verdict was inevitable, applying the test applicable under s. 186(1)(b)(iii) (the “curative provision”) of the Criminal Code. The Court applied the curative provision, holding that the conviction would have been inevitable if the error had not been made by the trial judge.
• 2002 BCCA 693 R. v. Saville
  Appeal from conviction for producing and possession of marihuana for purpose of trafficking dismissed for reasons of trial judge.
• 2002 BCCA 692 R. v. Webber
  The Court dismissed an appeal from a conviction for failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample, finding no error in the summary conviction appeal court's conclusion that the appellant had been provided with a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice.
• 2002 BCCA 691 R. v. Duong
  Mr. Van Duong appealed from his conviction for two counts of trafficking in cocaine. The only issue at trial was identification. Held: Appeal dismissed. The verdicts were supported by the evidence.
• 2002 BCCA 687 R. v. Lindsay
  Mr. Lindsay was charged with a number of offences under the Motor Vehicle Act. He wishes to assert as a defence that, on constitutional grounds, no government has the power to regulate the use of public roads or highways. On his first appearance before al Provincial Court judge, he took the position that the Provincial Court has no power to rule on constitutional questions and further that no judge of that court can hear the case against him because has a reasonable apprehension that all of its judges are biased because their salaries are paid from the same fund into which fines are paid. He applied to a Supreme Court judge for an order that the charges be heard in that court and that the Provincial Court be prohibited from hearing any case against him. He now appeals from the dismissal of those applications. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in holding that the Provincial Court has jurisdiction to rule on constitutional issues which arise out of cases before it and his apprehension of the bias, not being reasonable, cannot preclude the judges from hearing those cases.
• 2002 BCCA 686 R. v. Nguyen
  Sentence of six months imprisonment was imposed after guilty plea on one count of production of marihuana. Sentence appeal allowed to extent of reducing the sentence to one of four months to be served as a conditional sentence which had been the joint submission of Crown and defence. Sentencing judge erred in having regard only to general deterrence and disregarding the joint submission, the fact that the accused was a first offender and other mitigating circumstances.
• 2002 BCCA 683 R. v. Mattice
  Appeal from conviction on a charge of being unlawfully in a dwelling house dismissed. The circumstantial evidence supported the trial judge’s conclusion that the identification of the accused as the offender was established to the requisite standard.
• 2002 BCCA 682 R. v. Dunbar
  The appellant applied for release pending his appeal from a conviction for first degree murder. Held: Application dismissed on the basis that the appellant had not established that his detention was not necessary in the public interest within the meaning of s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code. Liberty granted to renew the application upon the filing of the appellant's further factum and application to adduce new evidence.
• 2002 BCCA 679 R. v. Stojanovski
  The appellant, having been convicted of a summary conviction offence and his appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court having been dismissed, seeks to bring a further appeal to this Court. His application for leave to appeal having been refused by a single judge, he applies under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act for review. Application quashed on the ground that the Code does not provide for such a review and the Court of Appeal Act has no application.
• 2002 BCCA 676 R. v. Nica
  The appellant had helped his son to take his grandson forcibly from the child’s mother. He argued the Information was misleading because it did not include words alleging he was a party to the offence under s. 21. The Court disagreed, and upheld his conviction for abduction.
• 2002 BCCA 674 R. v. Mark
  Application for leave to appeal from the decision of a summary conviction appeal court judge granted with respect to charges under the Pacific Fishery Regulations. Held: Leave to appeal granted. The appeal raised an issue of law, was of general importance and met the merits threshold for leave.
• 2002 BCCA 672 R. v. Ho
  The chambers judge refused to direct a separate hearing on an issue of mootness, where the substantive issues concerning a trial judge’s power to order the Crown to pay for defence counsel, beyond the legal aid tariff, might be thought worthy of the court’s consideration.
• 2002 BCCA 652 R. v. Clay
• 2002 BCCA 651 R. v. Grewal, Grewal & Toor
• 2002 BCCA 659 R. v. Vu
  Appeal of conviction for possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking on grounds that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of a defence witness, erred in concluding that knowledge and control was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts and rendered inconsistent verdicts. Appeal dismissed.
• 2002 BCCA 658 R. v. Crockett
  The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault causing bodily harm and unlawful confinement on the ground that the trial judge erred in admitting his confession into evidence as voluntary. He alleged he was induced into confessing by a promise of leniency, made during an unrecorded conversation between the appellant and police after the police attempted to persuade him to disregard his lawyer’s advice not to talk to the police. Held: appeal dismissed. It was open to the trial judge to conclude on the evidence that the police officer did not induce the appellant to make the statement by promising leniency.
• 2002 BCCA 648 R. v. Baptiste
  Court declined to interfere with a guilty verdict where the issue at trial involved the weighing of identification evidence.
• 2002 BCCA 647 R. v. Hiscock
  Sentences of six months' incarceration upheld for two young men convicted of uttering a threat and mischief, respectively. They had already served seven and eight months in prison, respectively, making the terms equivalent to two years, after allowing double time for pre-trial custody. The circumstances of the incident were aggravated, involving a large group of youths who threatened a man and woman simply walking on the street at night. Sentencing judge was entitled to view this as serious and to consider recent events in local community.
• 2002 BCCA 646 R. v. Lucani
  Conviction for possession of marihuana for trafficking set aside. The circumstantial evidence relied on by the trial judge was consistent with appellant having no involvement with the grow operation at the material time.
• 2002 BCCA 644 R. v. Chang
• 2002 BCCA 636 R. v. McCann
• 2002 BCCA 635 R. v. Huang
• 2002 BCCA 633 R. v. Larson; R. v. Peterson
  Appeals from conviction of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, production of marihuana, and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. Held: Appeals dismissed. The trial judge did not err in admitting evidence that one of the appellants provided a key to a locked shotgun found in the house where the search warrant was executed as evidence of his connection to the house. Also, there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that both appellants possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and that they had control over the marihuana grow operation. Finally, the trial judge did not fail to provide meaningful reasons as required by R. v. Sheppard (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 298, 2002 SCC 26. The reasons, which were lengthy, could not be said to have any deficiencies which would prevent meaningful appellate review on the correctness of the decision.

• 2002 BCCA 628 R. v. Blasdell
  Appeal from conviction by judge alone of robbery, uttering threats and assault, on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Appeal dismissed. Court not persuaded that trial judge had misapprehended or overlooked any important evidence or that trial was unfair.
• 2002 BCCA 627 R. v. Darling
  Appeal from sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment, in addition to 9 months pre-sentence custody, on one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm. Appeal allowed and sentence reduced to 2 ½ years of custody. Trial judge had before him a criminal record for appellant which the Crown conceded was incorrect in that it showed an additional prior conviction for a similar offence which had not been committed. Trial judge may have given undue weight to the incorrect record.
• 2002 BCCA 626 R. v. H.J.F. (Y.O.A)
  Appeal from sentence in youth court of 13 months secure custody and 24 months probation, in addition to 9 months custody pre-sentence, on conviction for robbery. Appeal allowed only to extent of reducing 13 months custody to 12 months, so that total sentence will not exceed maximum permissible. Sentence was otherwise fit. Appellant was guilty of a robbery in which the victim was severely beaten and seriously injured.
• 2002 BCCA 619 R. v. Rindero
  The Court allowed an appeal from a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence, directing a new hearing under s. 759(3)(6) of the Criminal Code.
• 2002 BCCA 617 R. v. Osborne
  Sentence appeal from a number of custodial sentences (some custodial), totalling 15 months dismissed because of persistent course of property crimes by appellant.
• 2002 BCCA 616 R. v. Schwartz
  The appellant was found to be a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. He appealed and alleged, amongst other things, that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to consider the long-term offender provisions of the Criminal Code, contrary to this Court's decision in R. v. Johnson (2001), 158 C.C.C. (3d) 155. Held: Appeal dismissed. Although the trial judge erred in failing to consider the long-term offender provisions of the Code, the result would necessarily have been the same.
• 2002 BCCA 612 R. v. Thomas
  Appeal from a conviction for manslaughter brought on the grounds that the trial judge erred (1) in failing to leave with the jury the defence of preventing assault to another person under s. 37 of the Criminal Code and defence of a dwelling house under s. 41 of the Code and; (2) in failing to order a stay of proceeding in relation to the Crown’s alleged failure to provide full and timely disclosure.
  The appeal was dismissed on the first ground because on the evidence, a defence under s. 37 had no air of reality. On the second ground, no error in principle in the ruling of the trial judge was demonstrated.
• 2002 BCCA 608 R. v. Bazinet
• 2002 BCCA 607 R. v. Rothgardt
  The appellant was charged with robbery. He asked for an assessment pursuant to s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code. The assessment was designed to render an opinion as to whether the appellant was suffering from a disease of the mind such as to render him unable to appreciate the nature of his act. Pursuant to the report and in conformity with counsels’ submissions, the appellant was found not criminally responsible due to mental disease (NCRMD). The appellant, on the appeal, asserted that the trial judge’s reasons were so brief as to amount to an injustice. He further asked to admit as fresh evidence a medical report prepared for a Disposition Hearing. Held, per Thackray, J.A., the reasons were adequate. Further, that the proposed new evidence was prepared for a different purpose, was thereby possibly inadmissible at trial, and would not be admitted on the appeal. Per Ryan, J.A., agreeing in the result, found that the trial judge was not required to determine whether the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea.
• 2002 BCCA 606 R. v. Harding
  The offender defrauded his client of some $600,000. He did this in his capacity as an independent bookkeeper. He had a previous criminal record as a result of the same sort of conduct. The trial judge imposed, as well as a period of incarceration, a three year term of probation. The appeal was against one term of the probation order. That term barred the offender from working as a bookkeeper for the length of time of the probation. Held: while the term was punitive that does not, in itself, make it inappropriate. Deterrence, both specific and general, as well as rehabilitation was considered by the trial judge in imposing the term in question.
• 2002 BCCA 604 R. v. Millar
  An application for leave to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia convicting the applicant of offences under the Income Tax Act was dismissed as no question of law alone was raised.
• 2002 BCCA 601 Henry v. A.G. (B.C.) et al
• 2002 BCCA 600 R. v. Bazinet
• 2002 BCCA 599 R. v. D.R. (YO)
• 2002 BCCA 596 R. v. Planes
  The trial judge’s charge in trial on charge of second degree murder failed to follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in R. v. Robinson (1996), 1 S.C.R. 683 and R. v. Seymour (1996), 2 S.C.R. 252, re “common sense inference” where evidence of intoxication. Retrial ordered.
• 2002 BCCA 595 R. v. Jordan
  Hearing of sentence appeal adjourned at request of appellant.
• 2002 BCCA 594 R. v. Law
  The Court dismissed an appeal from convictions for the production and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. At issue was the sufficiency of the Information to obtain a search warrant for the residence in which the grow operation was found.
• 2002 BCCA 581 R. v. Bennett
  The Court dismissed an appeal from a dangerous offender designation. The evidence revealed no possibility of evidence being developed to support a reasonable possibility of eventual control within the community.
• 2002 BCCA 579 R. v. Robertson
  The appellant, who had a history of drug addiction, committed four robberies at knifepoint over nine days. The sentence imposed at trial was two years less a day with the first year to be served in custody and the second by way of a conditional sentence followed by three years of supervised probation. Held: Sentence appeal allowed. The “blended” sentence is not legal. The appropriate sentence, given the seriousness of the offences and the considerable escalation from the appellant’s previous record, is two years less a day followed by three years of probation on the conditions attached to the original sentence order.
• 2002 BCCA 583 R. v. Yates
  Ms. Yates sought leave to appeal from that aspect of a sentence requiring her to pay restitution to the Ministry of Human Resources arising from her conviction for "welfare fraud". She alleged that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to take her limited income into consideration in imposing the restitution order. Counsel for the Crown advised that restitution orders are made as a matter of course in cases involving welfare fraud. Held: Leave to appeal granted, but the appeal is dismissed. The Court reviewed the relevant authorities dealing with the imposition of restitution orders and concluded that, in this case, the fact that Ms. Yates had significant equity in her home was a valid basis for imposing a restitution order despite the fact that she had limited income.
• 2002 BCCA 576 R. v. Mercredi
  The appellant stabbed her neighbour to death. At trial, both the Crown and defence led expert evidence that the appellant was a paranoid schizophrenic and agreed that the proper verdict was not criminally responsible on account of mental illness. The jury found the appellant guilty of manslaughter. Held: appeal allowed. Following the reasoning R. v. Molodowic, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420, the jury’s verdict is set aside and substituted for a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The matter is referred to the Review Board for a disposition hearing.
• 2002 BCCA 575 R. v. Henry
  Appeal from an effective sentence of 18 years on one count of aggravated sexual assault, concurrent with a two year sentence for robbery. Appellant had previously been declared a long-term offender. Appeal dismissed. No error of principle was shown; the sentence was consistent with other sentences for similar offences and similar offenders, and was not unfit.
• 2002 BCCA 570 R. v. MacMillan
  Appeal allowed in homicide case where judge on occasions did not correctly set out requirements for murder and writing found after jury deliberation indicating a juror or jurors may have relied on the erroneous definition. New trial ordered.
• 2002 BCCA 565 R. v. Simpson
  The appellant, convicted of one count of theft, argued that the trial judge erred by convicting her because he disbelieved her evidence without finding that she had deliberately lied. Crown counsel argued that the trial judge used the evidence of the appellant's post-offence conduct not only to assess her credibility but as circumstantial evidence from which he drew the inference of consciousness of guilt. Held: appeal allowed and new trial ordered. Taken at face value, the trial judge's reasons for judgment indicate that he proceeded from disbelief of the appellant's evidence to a finding of guilt, and give no indication that he analyzed the evidence as outlined by Crown counsel and required by law. Given the dangers of misinterpretation and over-emphasis of post-offence conduct, the failure to articulate the necessary inferences as required by law is a failure of reasoning and an error of law. It can only be concluded that the trial judge did not find the appellant guilty on the basis of inferences of guilt from her conduct, but because he did not believe her explanations.
• 2002 BCCA 561 R. v. Hubble
  Conviction appeal – charge of production of a controlled substance contrary to s. 7(1) of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – circumstantial evidence only as to actual participation in cultivation of marihuana – accused not testifying – appeal dismissed.
• 2002 BCCA 560 R. v. Pham
  Sentences of eight years upheld for conspiracy to traffic in heroin and cocaine.
• 2002 BCCA 559 R. v. Ku
  The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of s. 487.052 authorizing an order directing that the appellant provide a blood sample for the DNA data bank. He also appealed the order made under that provision. HELD: agreeing with the Courts of Appeal of Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta, the provision is not contrary to the Charter. The order was properly made in the circumstances.
• 2002 BCCA 558 R. v. Khadikin
  On an appeal from conviction on a charge of trafficking in cocaine, appellant sought to raise a new issue based on fresh evidence. Appeal dismissed. Evidence appellant sought to have taken into account could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial.
• 2002BCCA 552 R. v. Biery and O'Brian
  The Court upholds custodial sentences of eighteen months imposed on the two appellants for five counts of possession of various illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
• 2002 BCCA 548 R. v. McCann
• 2002 BCCA 547 R. v. Thornber
  Appeal from conviction for robbery. The issue was identification. One eyewitness was clearly mistaken as to the robber’s eye colour. The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge was not bound to acquit on the basis of the witness’s mistake. On the whole of the evidence the verdict was not unreasonable, and the judge correctly instructed himself on the frailties of eyewitness evidence, and on basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence.
• 2002 BCCA 542 R. v. Guan
• 2002 BCCA 540 R. v. Cai
  Leave to appeal granted because of possible misapprehension of facts by Summary Appeal Court judge.
• 2002 BCCA 536 R. v. Bazinet
  On the basis of defence waiver or, alternatively, on the basis of actions of the defence and lack of significant prejudice, the trial court properly dismissed an application for a judicial stay of proceedings arising out of delay. Prowse, J.A., concurring, would restrict the decision to the second basis.
• 2002 BCCA 534 R. v. T.D.
  Flight from the scene, cannot, standing alone, ground a conviction for being the occupant of a motor vehicle with knowledge that it had been stolen.
• 2002 BCCA 530 R. v. Adiwal
  Mr. Adiwal appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. Held: Appeal allowed and an acquittal entered. The evidence could not support a finding that the rifle was loaded at the time it was found to be in Mr. Adiwal's possession.
• 2002 BCCA 529 R. v. Ram
• 2002 BCCA 528 R. v. Swanson
  Court of Appeal allowing appeal from conviction for second degree murder because of error in charge to jury concerning after the fact conduct of appellant who lied to police operator about how husband was killed. Trial judge failed to distinguish between relevance of such conduct to different defences of self defence and intoxication
• 2002 BCCA 527 R. v. Cooper
  The Court dismissed an appeal from a dangerous offender designation.
• 2002 BCCA 517 R. v. Laidlaw
• 2002 BCCA 515 R. v. Cerra
  Appeal from a conviction of second degree murder. The appellant's first ground is that manslaughter was not left with the jury. There was no air of reality to the alternative verdict. The deceased was severely beaten and drowned. The appellant must have intended to kill her. There was no evidentiary basis for the defence of intoxication by cocaine. The second ground is that the charge on reasonable doubt did not include a statement that reasonable doubt was closer to absolute certainty than the balance of probabilities: R. v. Starr. The charge as a whole adequately instructed the jury on the proper standard of proof. The third ground relates to the admission and use of bad character evidence. Evidence of disreputable conduct on the part of the appellant was relevant and admissible. The trial judge fully explained the proper use of the evidence and warned the jury against its improper use.
• 2002 BCCA 513 R. v. Goodwin
  Appellant, designated a dangerous offender, suffers from a developmental disability. He cannot control his sexual urges but if he takes anti-libidinal medication and is subject to 24 hour supervision his condition can be controlled in the community. Held, by a majority, that appellant should be designated a long term offender and released to a care facility in the community. Ryan J.A., in dissent, would uphold the dangerous offender designation and leave it to the parole authorities to determine whether he should go into the community.
• 2002 BCCA 512 R. v. P.E.C.
  Time to file the notice of appeal extended. Delay of 15 months was adequately explained. The appellant raises a reasonably arguable ground.
• 2002 BCCA 510 R. v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.
  The respondent, who was convicted of a strict liability offence, had brought itself within the first branch of the due diligence test in R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.) by proving that it had an honest belief in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render its conduct innocent. The trial judge ought to have acquitted on that basis. He erred in applying the second branch of the test to register a conviction. The summary conviction appeal judge correctly set aside the conviction and the Crown’s appeal was dismissed. Prowse J.A. dissenting, would set aside the verdict of acquittal and enter a verdict of guilty, substantially for the reasons given by the trial judge. The respondent, who was convicted of a strict liability offence, had brought itself within the first branch of the due diligence test in R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.) by proving that it had an honest belief in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render its conduct innocent. The trial judge ought to have acquitted on that basis. He erred in applying the second branch of the test to register a conviction. The summary conviction appeal judge correctly set aside the conviction and the Crown’s appeal was dismissed. Prowse J.A. dissenting, would set aside the verdict of acquittal and enter a verdict of guilty, substantially for the reasons given by the trial judge.
• 2002 BCCA 505 R. v. Browne
  Appeal from sentences on robbery convictions totalling 54 months dismissed. Appellant had long record.
• 2002 BCCA 503 R. v. Pham
  The decision to admit evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter by a trial judge will warrant the intervention of the Court of Appeal if the decision is unreasonable. The appellant failed to persuade the court that the decision in this case was unreasonable. The appeal from convictions for theft and drug offences were dismissed.
• 2002 BCCA 499 R. v. Romanowski
  Appeal from a global sentence of 9 months imprisonment for one count of theft over $5,000 and once count of fraud dismissed. The sentencing judge did not err in his treatment of the time the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing, nor did he err in imposing a sentence higher than that suggested by counsel.
• 2002 BCCA 497 R. v. Nagra
  To reverse a decision of a trial judge to admit evidence under s. 24(2), the Court of Appeal must find an error in principle on an unreasonable finding of fact. The appellant was unable to demonstrate error. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2002 BCCA 489 Shingler v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
  The Law Society of British Columbia sought dismissal of an appeal from an order made following a summary trial because the unrepresented appellant had failed to deliver the Appeal Record to it within the required period. The application was dismissed.
• 2002 BCCA 471 R. v. Pelletier
  An appeal from a sentence of six months in prison for robbery was dismissed as not unfit.
• 2002 BCCA 469 R. v. Karlsen
  Sentence for marihuana offences of 15 months reduced to time served (8 months).
• 2002 BCCA 467    Lemay v. A.G. et al.
  The appellant applied for release pending her appeals of sentence of five months’ incarceration and one year’s probation and her conviction for contempt of an order, to which she had consented, enjoining her from acting as or holding herself out as a midwife.  Her application for release pending her sentence appeal was dismissed because she failed to establish that the appeal is not frivolous.  Her application for release pending her conviction appeal was dismissed because she failed to establish that her detention was not necessary in the public interest.  Public safety is the primary concern.  This was her second conviction for contempt of a court order; the contempt consisted of assisting in homebirths for a fee on ten separate occasions; she had been involved twice before in homebirths at which the foetus died; and, after her conviction and before her sentencing hearing in this case, she again breached the injunction by assisting, for a fee, in a homebirth during which complications arose that required emergency medical treatment for the mother and foetus.  The appellant has demonstrated that she will not obey court orders.  She has no formal medical training and the prohibited conduct, in which she engaged despite the injunction, is inherently risky and poses dangers for mothers and their unborn babies.  There is a likelihood that she will re-offend if released.  As well, her proposed grounds of appeal are weak.  In all of the circumstances, enforceability outweighs reviewability in this case, as her release would pose a danger to the public and would cause reasonable and informed members of the public lose confidence in the proper administration of justice.
• 2002 BCCA 466 R. v. Sauneuf
  Sentence totalling 17 months for cultivation of marihuana and cocaine trafficking offences reduced to time served (seven months). Sentencing judge did not give consideration to personal circumstances of appellant who, at age 49, has no prior convictions, has good work record and turned to illicit drugs to relieve pain from injuries sustained in a logging accident.
• 2002 BCCA 468    R. v. Nome
  The appellant was sentenced to 46 months in prison on one count of sexual assault, and given credit for 38 months on account of 19 months pre-trial custody for, effectively, a sentence of 7 years.  He was sentenced to 14 months concurrent for possessing a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.  The trial judge refused a "joint submission" that the sentence be time already served.  He made, without opposition, a declaration that the appellant was a long-term offender and an order for 10 years supervision under s.753.1(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.    An appeal against the 7 year sentence for sexual assault was dismissed.  The judge did not err in refusing to accept the joint submission, and the sentence was not unfit.
• 2002 BCCA 465 R. v. Groleau
  Sentence of two years lowered to two years less a day so appellant can receive specific counselling available to him in provincial institution. Appellant has significant criminal record. Sentence for breaking and entering a dwelling house otherwise fit.
• 2002 BCCA 464    R. v. Van Osselaer
  Appellant appealing from conviction for second degree murder.  Appellant arguing that judge erred in criteria used as basis for admitting statements in that he was alleged to have considered consistency – R. v. Starr (2000), 2 S.C.R. 144 and R. v. Merz (1999), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 259 cited.  Court holding that judge properly assessed inherent reliability of statements and did not improperly admit hearsay statements.  Court finding that judge gave adequate warning to jury about how to assess statements when declarant not available for cross-examination.  Conviction appeal dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 463 R. v. Stewart
  Sentence of 42 months after 10 months in custody pre-trial fit for two robberies, dangerous driving and three assaults, including two of a police officer. The appellant is 37 years old and is a drug addict with an extensive criminal record.
• 2002 BCCA 459    R. v. Dhesi
  Application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed on 17 April 2002 , and an appeal against sentence of 1 year imprisonment on 1 count of aggravated assault on two victims.  Appeal allowed and sentence reduced to time served.  Having regard for the facts that this was a first offence, and conduct out of character for the appellant, the sentence was excessive and unfit.
• 2002 BCCA 457 R. v. Devuyst

• 2002 BCCA 456    R. v. Codd
  A sentence of 17 months imprisonment for trafficking cocaine was affirmed where the appellant had prior convictions for similar offences and was on probation at the time of the offence.  
• 2002 BCCA 453    R. v. Williams
  An appeal was dismissed from convictions for discharging a firearm with intent to wound and several related offences arising out of an automobile chase in which shots were fired by the appellant's companion.  The trial judge did not err in his charge to the jury on the common-law defence of duress, nor did he err in admitting certain wiretap evidence.  While the charge on reasonable doubt did not comply with the requirements of R. v. Lifchus, it was adequate in the particular circumstances of this case.  The Court expressed again its view that trial judges should charge in accordance with Lifchus in order to avoid unnecessary appeals.
• 2002 BCCA 450 R. v. Hanko
• 2002 BCCA 448    R. v. Larue
  Charged with aggravated sexual assault, the accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.  The trial proceeded before a judge alone on the issue whether the assault was also sexual.  The judge, after reviewing the evidence in his reasons, said it was probable that the accused had been sexually assaulting the complainant when he committed the assault, which consisted of slashing her throat with a knife.  But he found that not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted of sexual assault.  The Crown appeals on the ground that the judge erred in law in not accepting the "uncontroverted" evidence of the complainant which, if accepted, established "circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim (was) violated".  The Crown also contended that the judge erred by indulging in what it called "pure speculation" by having regard to such matters as the possibility of the sexual involvement having been between the complainant and another man who had been present in the house at the time.  HELD (majority): If there was any error by the trial judge, it was in his assessment of the evidence and thus was an error of fact, not law.  The judge was not required to accept the evidence of the complainant even though it was not directly controverted and, in deciding whether the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was entitled to have regard to what he saw as reasonable possibilities arising from evidence of other witnesses.  (Dissenting judgment)  This is a case of undisputed facts arising from the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant.  The judge, had he understood the definition of sexual assault in R. v. Chase, could not have had a reasonable doubt as to guilt.  The acquittal should be set aside and a conviction entered for aggravated sexual assault.
• 2002 BCCA 446    R. v. Cho
  Mr. Cho was arrested in Hong Kong on a warrant for first degree murder.  He had also been charged with the first degree murder of another person.  He was first convicted of the second degree murder and although the murder was first in time, the conviction was came prior in time to the second degree murder.  He therefore carried a murder conviction on his record when he was sentenced for the first degree murder.  Under the Code as it was at the time of the murder the trial judge imposed a ten year inability to apply for parole on the second degree conviction.  Held: The sentence was fit.  Defence counsel asked for a declaration that the time for parole started to run when Mr. Cho was arrested in Hong Kong, not six months later when he was returned to Canada.  Held: The parole authorities should first come to a decision, publish it and then Mr. Cho, if dissatisfied with the decision, can proceed by way of a judicial review application or habeas corpus.

• 2002 BCCA 444    R. v. Digiacomo
  Mr. Digiacomo failed to appear for his sentencing on a conviction for fraud.  His co-accused appeared and was sentenced.  The Provincial Court judge held, without a hearing, that Mr. Digiacomo was an absconder.  He also refused to hear any submissions on sentence and sentenced Mr. Digiacomo. HELD: It might be that the Provincial Court lost jurisdiction to sentence through its finding that Mr. Digiacomo was an absconder.  However, the Crown did not concede this but agreed that Mr. Digiacomo was entitled to have his sentence hearing take place in the Court of Appeal (pursuant to s.687 of the Code) on the basis of the breach of s.723 of the Criminal Code that provides for submissions by counsel prior to sentencing.

• 2002 BCCA 431    R. v. Copeland
  Application by Crown that appeal be dismissed as abandoned granted.

• 2002 BCCA 430    R. v. Hoang
  Parole ineligibility for second degree murder set by trial judge at 20 years, despite jury recommendation of 10 years.  Offence a shooting of a stranger with a sawed-off shotgun, in a parking lot in the evening.  Incident leading to the encounter was trivial.  A degree of deliberation present.  Held: Parole ineligibility reduced to 15 years.

• 2002 BCCA 420 R. v. B.R.B.
  An appeal from the determination that the appellant was a dangerous offender was allowed on the ground that the trial judge failed to require the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable probability of eventual control of the offender in the community. A new hearing is ordered.

• 2002 BCCA 414    R. v. R.R.A. 
  The applicant sought to extend time for appealing from an indeterminate sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault.  The application was heard with R. v. M.A.G.. (CA029574).  Both applicants seek to take advantage of the decisions of this Court in R. v. Johnson, 2001 B.C.C.A. 456 and R. v. Edgar, 2001 B.C.C.A. 457, which changed the law as previously understood regarding whether a person convicted of a sexual offence and found to be a dangerous offender is entitled to seek long-term offender status as an alternative to an indeterminate sentence.   HELD: The interests of justice require that the extension of time be granted. The circumstances of this case are significantly different from these in the R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. line of cases.  This is not a case of seeking to be artificially allowed into the system to benefit from "new" law.  Rather, it is an attempt to seek the benefit of the recent correction of a mistaken view of the law in relation to the question whether the applicant must serve his present sentence as an indeterminate one.

• 2002 BCCA 413    R. v. M.A.G. 
  The applicant sought to extend time for appealing from an indeterminate sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault.  The application was heard with R. v. R.R.A. (CA029575).  Both applicants seek to take advantage of the decisions of this Court in R. v. Johnson, 2001 B.C.C.A. 456 and R. v. Edgar, 2001 B.C.C.A. 457, which changed the law as previously understood regarding whether a person convicted of a sexual offence and found to be a dangerous offender is entitled to seek long-term offender status as an alternative to an indeterminate sentence.   HELD: The interests of justice require that the extension of time be granted. The circumstances of this case are significantly different from these in the R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. line of cases.  This is not a case of seeking to be artificially allowed into the system to benefit from "new" law.  Rather, it is an attempt to seek the benefit of the recent correction of a mistaken view of the law in relation to the question whether the applicant must serve his present sentence as an indeterminate one.

• 2002 BCCA 411    R. v. Jamieson
  The appellant appeals from his convictions of possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and GHB and aggravated assault of Patrick Jennings.  Jennings ran out of a home rented to the appellant with acid burns on his face and body.  When police responded they became concerned that the residence might house a clandestine drug lab and should be checked in the interests of safety.   Specially trained officers with protective equipment entered the house without a warrant approximately two hours later. Drug-related items were in plain view of the officers who entered the residence.  The police returned the next day with a warrant based on evidence relating to the aggravated assault and what the officers observed during their warrantless entry.   Held: Appeal dismissed.    The warrantless entry was justified as the police were within the scope of their duty to protect life imposed by statute and common-law when the entered the premises and thus was not an unreasonable search within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter.  Even if the warrantless search had not been justified, the police had grounds for a search warrant related to the aggravated assault.  The items that related to the drug offences were in plain view and therefore subject to seizure under s. 489 of the Criminal Code.  Absent justification for the warrantless entry, one must consider whether s. 24(2) required exclusion of the items seized.  In these circumstances, the admission of the seized evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  The evidence amply supported the finding of the trial judge that the elements of possession for the purpose of trafficking were established.  A reference by the trial judge to the failure of the accused to testify was within the limited use allowed, as explained in R. v. Noble, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874.  The defence of self-defence had no air of reality.  Even accepting that Jennings may have become a trespasser, the appellant’s action in throwing acid on Jennings was in no way proportional to the circumstances.

• 2002 BCCA 401    R. v. Rode
  The appellant's application for release from custody pending determination of his appeal from his conviction for manslaughter is granted.

• 2002 BCCA 404    Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services v. AGBC
  The Director's application pursuant to s. 672.76 of  the Criminal Code  to suspend a disposition by the Review Board ordering her to do certain things is dismissed because she has not met the burden of showing that "the mental condition of the accused justifies" the suspension, which is a condition of the Court's jurisdiction to make the order.

• 2002 BCCA 390    R. v. Dick
  Appeal adjourned.

• 2002 BCCA 388    R. v. B.B.
  The accused appealed from his conviction of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  He alleged that the trial judge had erred in failing to find a breach of his ss. 8 and 9 rights under the Charter and in failing to exclude the evidence obtained following the breaches pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.  He also alleged that the trial judge erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and in misapprehending the evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.  Held:  The appeal is dismissed.  There were reasonable grounds to detain the accused and there was no breach of the accused’s rights under s. 9 of the Charter.  Although the strip search in the field as opposed to at the police station amounted to an unreasonable search of the accused contrary to s. 8 of the Charter (see R. v. Golden 2001 SCC 83), the admission of the evidence obtained following the breach would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  Finally, the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

• 2002 BCCA 385    Seifert v. AG Canada
  The tertiary test governing release from custody involves, among other things, an answer to the question of whether detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.  The standard for the application of that test, in extradition matters just as in general criminal matters, is whether a substantial number of reasonable, fair-minded people would conclude that detention is not necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

• 2002 BCCA 380    Gustavson v. Mission Institution
  Appeal from dismissal of application for habeas corpus dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court and without merit. The appellant is serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment imposed in 1983, following the imposition in 1981 and 1982 of consecutive sentences totalling more than 25 years. He abandoned his sentence appeals in 1983. Two previous appeals to this Court from the dismissal of his habeas corpus applications were dismissed as collateral attacks on his sentences and being without merit. On this appeal, the appellant raised issues of the legality and length of his sentences, which is a collateral attack, and sentence calculation, which has no relevance to the indeterminate sentence.

• 2002 BCCA 376    R. v. Laboucan
  The Court dismissed an appeal from a dangerous offender designation, applying R. v. Johnson and R. v. Edgar.  There was no evidence to support a reasonable possibility of control in the community within a determinate sentence, 10-year supervision order and any extension under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code.  

• 2002 BCCA 372    R. v. Elkins
  Appeal from concurrent sentences of 12 months imprisonment for impaired driving causing bodily harm and six months imprisonment for theft of a motor vehicle, to be served consecutively to sentence of 12 months imprisonment being served at the date of sentencing.  Appellant objected to consecutive sentences. Held:  Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.  The sentences standing alone, or served consecutively to the sentence being served, are not in any way unfit.  The principles of deterrence and protection of the public are properly reflected in the sentences.  

• 2002 BCCA 371    R. v. Barata
  Leave to appeal sentence refused on the basis that the appellant’s remedy was to apply for a variation of the probation order pursuant to s. 732.2(3) of the Criminal Code.  There was no allegation that the sentence was unfit, only that the probation order should be varied as a result of a change in circumstances since sentencing.

• 2002 BCCA 368    R. v. Stojanovski
  Application for leave to appeal dismissal of appeal from conviction for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and for assault.  Application dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 363    R. v. B.C. Tel
  This Court does not have jurisdiction to "review and vary" an order of a single justice in Chambers granting leave to appeal a verdict in a summary conviction offence governed by the Criminal Code.  

• 2002 BCCA 361    R. v. E.R.
  Appeal of conviction under s. 372(1) of the Criminal Code rejected.  The verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupportable on the totality of the evidence.  The fact that the appellant did not testify at trial is an appropriate consideration when assessing the reasonableness of the verdict on appeal.  It was open to the trial judge to consider the evidence of the co-accused in convicting the appellant.

• 2002 BCCA 359    R. v. Chang
  The court rejected the appellants’ submission that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.  The appeal was dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 356    R. v. Adelberg
  Appeal of sentence from a drug conviction allowed.  Considerations not adequately emphasized before the sentencing judge (the appellant’s medical condition and his otherwise responsible conduct) justified a reduction in sentence.  The appellant’s age, the small amount of narcotic involved, and the brief period of time over which the offences occurred, were also relevant.

• 2002 BCCA 355    R. v. Porter
  The appellant was convicted on four counts: fraud; forging a survey plan; moving a boundary marker; and uttering a forged documents. On appeal he argued that his trial had been unreasonably delayed and that his rights under s.11(b) of the Charter were breached; that he was prejudiced because a civil trial arising from the same facts as the criminal charges proceeded concurrently; that the trial judge erred in admitting or misapprehending certain evidence; and that the trial was rendered unfair by the conduct of the trial judge, Crown counsel and defence counsel.   The court did not find merit in any of the grounds of appeal asserted and the appeal was dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 351     R. v. Evans
  The appellant was tried for murder with a co-accused.  The co-accused was acquitted of murder, but convicted of being an accessory after the fact.  The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the trials of the appellant and the co-accused.  The appellant said that he was prejudiced by the admission of the co-accused's videotaped confession, and that if the trial judge did not err in refusing severance, he did not properly instruct the jury that they could not use the evidence of the co-accused's confession against the appellant.  The appellant also submitted that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury about motive.   The appeal was dismissed.  The trial judge properly exercised his discretion on the question of severance in accordance with the principles set out in R. v. Crawford, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858.  His instructions to the jury were clear that the jury could not use the evidence of the co-accused's confession as part of the case against the appellant.  Finally, the trial judge instructed the jury that in his view the Crown had not proved motive as part of its case against the two accused.  In saying this he did not undermine the theory of the defence that the co-accused had a motive to commit the murder.  Further instructions to the jury made it clear that the appellant's defence included the theory that the co-accused had a motive to murder the victim.

• 2002 BCCA 348    R. v. Bruno
  Application for leave to appeal dismissal of summary conviction appeal from conviction on four counts of failure to file an income tax return.  The applicant’s grounds for appeal included a challenge to the validity of the Income Tax Act and to the jurisdiction of the judges who had heard his case.  Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed; the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.  

• 2002 BCCA 346    R. v. Ruffolo
  Dismissal of an appeal of conviction on 22 counts of unlawfully acting as an agent contrary to s.3(1) of the Real Estate Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 397.  The statutory definition of "agent" applies, not the common law definition of agent.  The evidence clearly supported the convictions.

• 2002 BCCA 343    R. v. Bowers
  An appeal from a conviction for first degree murder was allowed on the basis that new expert DNA evidence tendered by the appellant on the appeal might have affected the result if it had been before the trial judge.

• 2002 BCCA 342    R. v. Mikolaczyhk
  Appeal of convictions for possession for the purposes of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, rejected.  The trial judge’s consideration of the Aboriginal appellant’s culpability, and of time spent in custody, were both appropriate.  Application for modification of firearms prohibition (on the basis that the appellant ought to be able to hunt) and application for modification of terms of probation also rejected.

• 2002 BCCA 341    R. v. M.C.W.
  The Court ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to give limiting instructions in the use of evidence about the accused's pre-detention silence and failed to tell the jury it must disregard Crown's counsel's suggestion to infer the guilt of the accused from his silence and of his witnesses.

• 2002 BCCA 340    R. v. B.R.B
  The Crown applied for an adjournment of three appeals set for hearing in June in which the appellants had been designated dangerous offenders and sentenced to indeterminate terms of imprisonment.  The appellants were relying on the decisions of this Court in R. v. Johnson, 2001 BCCA 456, and R. v. Edgar, 2001 BCCA 457, together with two other decisions of this Court following Johnson and Edgar.  The appeals of those cases were tentatively set to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada in January 2003.  The appellants opposed the adjournments on the basis that they would be prejudiced by the delay.  Held:  Applications for adjournment dismissed.  The appellants were entitled to have their appeals heard and determined on the basis of the law in this province represented by the Johnson and Edgar decisions. 

• 2002 BCCA 339    R. v. Holtam
  Appellant convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder of family members.  Crown alleging motive for crimes was desire of accused to be free of family obligations so he could continue relationship with paramour.  Court of Appeal finding no error in rulings of trial judge that arrest and seizure of clothing at time of arrest lawful, that wiretap conversation admissible and that judge not required to further warn jury about "bad character" evidence.  Where such evidence admissible to prove motive, no such warning is necessary.  Court also rejecting argument that the evidence was not adequate to support verdicts of first degree murder found by jury.  Appeal dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 336    R. v. Whicher
  Sentence of 10 years upheld in home invasion case.  Circumstances quite serious because this was an assault on two defenceless elderly residents of a rural neighbourhood.  Appellant aged 24 with previous record and poor employment history.  Court observing that substantial sentences required in this class of case to attempt to deter this type of conduct which appears to be becoming an increasing problem.

• 2002 BCCA 335    R. v. Holland
  Application under s.680(1) of the Criminal Code for review of an order revoking bail granted.  The issue of the court's jurisdiction to conduct a review should be decided by a division of the court.  

• 2002 BCCA 334    R. v. McLeod
  The appellant was convicted of the attempted murder of his former girlfriend and of breaking and entering a home in which his former girlfriend was caring for an elderly woman.  He was sentenced to 6 1/2 years' imprisonment, which, when combined with the time he had spent in pre-trial custody, resulted in an overall sentence of 10 years.  He was 20 years of age at the time of the offence and was a first offender.  The circumstances of the attempted murder were particularly brutal and were proceeded by previous death threats and by a history of controlling behaviour on the part of the appellant.  Held:  Leave to appeal from sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.  The sentencing judge did not err in principle or otherwise in imposing the sentence which, in the circumstances, was entirely fit.

• 2002 BCCA 333    R. v. Mitzel
  Leave to appeal granted and a sentence of 12 months incarceration on 1 count of break and enter reduced to 6 months, considering the cumulative effect of the sentence and a sentence imposed 10 days earlier for a similar offence committed shortly before the subject offence.

• 2002 BCCA 332    R. v. Simmonds
  A jury convicted the appellant of first-degree murder.  On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred while instructing the jury in compliance with the decision in R. v. Harbottle as to the law of parties and s.231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code; and that certain evidence going to character was wrongly admitted.  The court finds that the Harbottle instruction was correct and upon consideration of the charge as a whole the jury must have understood that the appellant's involvement had to be a substantial and integral cause of the murder.  There was an oversight in the instruction on character evidence but it could not have affected the result.  Appeal dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 331    R. v. Motamedi
  Accused appeals finding that he was guilty as a party to the offence of trafficking.  Sole ground of appeal is that verdict was unreasonable.  Appeal dismissed.

• 2002 BCCA 330    R. v. Jordan
  Appeal from a conviction on 2 Counts of breaching conditions of a recognizance made pursuant to s.810.2 of the Criminal Code, that the appellant is not to enter licenced premises in downtown Victoria, nor to drink alone with women.  Only part of a police interview with the appellant was tape-recorded because of an inadvertent error in operating the recorder.  The officer conducting the interview made notes of the unrecorded portion.  The Crown disclosed the notes and the tape of the recorded portion to the defence.  The appellant maintained his innocence throughout the interview.  As it was wholly exculpatory, the Crown had no intention of adducing the statement.  The appellant argued that non-disclosure affected his defence.   HELD: There was no denial of the appellant’s s.7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.  The Crown disclosed what it had.  The allegation that the conviction on Count 1 was unreasonable could not be sustained because it was based on the idea that the entire premises of a hotel is “licenced” for the sale of liquor, which is untenable.  Arguments that the Crown’s witness were incredible were rejected because the trial judge’s findings in assessing the witnesses were not unreasonable.  The allegation that the conviction on Count 2 is bad was rejected because it depended on an unreasonable interpretation of the remarks of the judge who ordered the recognizance.

• 2002 BCCA 325    R. v. Redd
  The appellant sought a reversal of his conviction for first degree murder on the ground that evidence of bad character was improperly placed before the jury.  The appeal was dismissed.  The evidence was relevant to issues beyond mere propensity, viz., to motive and to the credibility of the appellant's confession to undercover police officers, and the trial judge did not err in admitting it.  The jury was properly instructed about the limited purposes for which the evidence could be used.
• 2002 BCCA 320    R. v. Dempsey
  Murder — self-defence s. 34 Criminal Code and mens rea s. 229(a)(ii) Code — charge to jury — s. 34 put to jury without distinguishing requirements for each of s. 34 subsections — judge referring to s. 229(a)(ii) as "an attitude of recklessness" as to whether death would ensue without referring to subjective foresight of death required by s. 229(a)(ii) — new trial ordered.  
• 2002 BCCA 319    R. v. Maton  
• 2002 BCCA 315    R. v. Truong
  Appeal from a conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.  Police at Vancouver International Airport opened the appellant's bag after a police dog sniff search and found 52 pounds of marijuana.  The police removed the bag from a conveyor in the secure baggage area to enable the sniff search.  The appellant argued that this was an unlawful seizure contrary to s. 8 which should have led to an exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).  The appellant did not place the sniff search in issue.  Appeal dismissed.  Donald J.A. for the majority:  The seizure was contrary to s. 8, but the Charter violation was minor and so the evidence was properly admitted.  Newbury J.A. concurring in the result, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage once it was checked in and therefore there was no breach of s. 8.
• 2002 BCCA 314    R. v. Parchment  
  Mr. Parchment appealed from his sentence totalling two years imprisonment following his conviction on three counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine and heroin) for the purpose of trafficking.  Held: Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.  The sentence imposed was not unfit, particularly having regard to Mr. Parchment’s lengthy criminal record and his use of a 14-year-old girl to assist him in his drug trafficking activities.
• 2002 BCCA 313    R. v. Parmar   
  Sentence of six months incarceration in case o f cocaine trafficking upheld.  Twenty-six year old offender without previous history.  Drugs valued at $2,500 - $3,500 plus scales and packaged cocaine found in vehicle, occupied by appellant and another person.
• 2002 BCCA 312    R. v. Hiscox 
  Appeal allowed and a new trial ordered where the trial judge misstated the requisite mens rea for a charge of threatening under s. 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code.