R. v. Drynock

R. v. Drynock

Identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainants' identifications were likely based on Facebook photographs and post‑incident information rather than their independent recollection of the gunman; first statements were generic, distinguishing features only appeared after exposure to social media, no uncontaminated photo line‑up was conducted and there was no corroborating evidence linking the accused to the scene, therefore the charge must be dismissed.

Citation
2020 BCSC 1832
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Michael Jerry Drynock
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault With a Weapon (s.267(a) Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Charge dismissed; accused acquitted
Legal Topics
Eyewitness Identification, In‑court Identification, Photo Line‑up Procedure, Social Media Identification, Burden of Proof Identity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Police Procedure Eyewitness Identification In‑court Identification Photo Line‑up Procedure Social Media Identification Burden of Proof Identity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Michael Jerry Drynock

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault With a Weapon (s.267(a) Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Reliability of eyewitness identification after exposure to social media photos
  3. 3 Whether in‑court identification was tainted by prior exposure and should be given weight

Ratio Decidendi

Identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainants' identifications were likely based on Facebook photographs and post‑incident information rather than their independent recollection of the gunman; first statements were generic, distinguishing features only appeared after exposure to social media, no uncontaminated photo line‑up was conducted and there was no corroborating evidence linking the accused to the scene, therefore the charge must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Charge dismissed; accused acquitted

Orders

  • Charge dismissed; accused acquitted