Court of Appeal

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Anne Derrick

Appeal Heard:

June 12, 2018, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Criminal law; assessment of the evidence – “unbalanced scrutiny”; reasonableness of the verdicts

Summary:

After a police investigation that included surveillance of Mr. Patterson, a correctional officer, and the examination of text messages, Mr. Patterson was charged with conspiracy to traffic drugs into a provincial jail, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of trust. At trial, he offered an innocent explanation for his participation in the text exchanges and for what police observed him doing on the night the drugs were dropped off near his home. He testified that he never had any intention of going through with a conspiracy to traffic drugs into the jail or take possession of the drugs for smuggling into the institution. The trial judge did not believe him and, examining the whole of the evidence, concluded that he was guilty as charged.

Mr. Patterson argued on appeal that the trial judge had narrowly focused on only certain evidence, made arbitrary assumptions, and indulged in speculation, causing him to wrongly conclude that the Crown had proven his guilty intention beyond a reasonable doubt. He said that police testimony at a Garofoli voir dire was given more latitude than his testimony at trial. He said the trial judge made assumptions about how he should have behaved in circumstances where he was being asked by a confederate of a prisoner at the jail to smuggle drugs into the jail.

Issues:

(1)         Did the appellant establish a basis for an “unbalanced scrutiny” ground of appeal?

(2)         Were the verdicts reasonable?

Result:

Mr. Patterson did not identify anything in what constituted the trial record that showed the trial judge to have applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence. He failed to demonstrate why the deference to be accorded to the trial judge’s credibility findings in relation to him should be displaced. The trial judge’s assessment of the evidence advanced by the Crown and Mr. Patterson was fair, balanced, and beyond reproach.

In assessing the plausibility of Mr. Patterson’s explanation of his purported strategy for dealing with the conspirators who wanted him to smuggle drugs into the jail, the trial judge was entitled to use common sense and logic. The trial judge correctly assessed Mr. Patterson’s credibility in accordance with R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 SCR 742. After his careful review of all the evidence, the trial judge found that Mr. Patterson had demonstrated, through his text messages and his conduct, the requisite intent to actively participate in the conspiracy. The trial judge’s reasons showed that he conducted a painstaking, thorough, and logical examination of all the evidence. He drew reasonable, supportable inferences. His comprehensive analysis of the text messages, the surveillance evidence, and Mr. Patterson’s testimony resulted in a well-reasoned determination that the Crown had proven, to the required high standard, all the elements of the offences. The verdicts were entirely reasonable and supported by the evidence.