Case information

Criminal law – Appeals – Unreasonable verdict – Whether the Court of Appeal erred – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and rule on the fresh evidence – Whether the reasons of the Court of Appeal were sufficient – Whether the verdict was unreasonable – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Mr. Davies, and an accomplice went to a store in Hamilton. The robbery was captured on video. An eye witnesses testified and identified Mr. Davies as one of the men running out of the store. The eyewitness also identified Mr. Davies in a photo line-up. After a trial by judge and jury, Mr. Davies was convicted of the following offences: armed robbery, use of an imitation firearm and disguise with intent. Mr. Davies’ principal ground of appeal was that the trial judge did not sufficiently caution the jury about the specific frailties in the evidence of the identification witness in this case. The Court of Appeal held that during the jury charge, the trial judge returned to the specific concerns about the identification evidence. The Court of Appeal held that it was satisfied that the trial judge properly identified the specific concerns that emerged from the evidence at trial. The conviction appeal was dismissed.