R. v. Blair
The trial judge explicitly dealt with each accused separately, evaluated favourable and unfavourable evidence concerning the appellant, concluded the appellant's account was not believable, and properly found guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt; there was no basis to overturn the conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36183
- Parties
- Appellant: Tony Blair; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Importation of Cocaine, Credibility of Witness, Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Trial Judge Reasons, Appellate Deference
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tony Blair
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge improperly treated the appellant as lumped with the co-accused
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in characterizing the appellant's evidence as suspect
- 3 Whether the conviction was supported beyond a reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge explicitly dealt with each accused separately, evaluated favourable and unfavourable evidence concerning the appellant, concluded the appellant's account was not believable, and properly found guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt; there was no basis to overturn the conviction.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Appeal against sentence abandoned.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Blair Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-05-30 Docket numbers C36183 Judges Doherty, David H.; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; MacPherson, James C. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20020530 DOCKET: C36183 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - TONY BLAIR (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, GOUDGE AND MACPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Tony Blair, in person for the appellant Steve Coroza for the respondent HEARD: May 27, 2002 On appeal from the conviction dated November 24, 2000, and the sentence imposed on February 6, 2001, by Madam Justice Moira L. Caswell. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant, Tony Blair, with the co-accused, Andrea Anderson, was charged with the offence of importing cocaine into Canada on June 14, 1999. He was tried before Madam Justice Caswell of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. On November 24, 2000, he was convicted and on February 6, 2001 he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years. The appellant appeals against his conviction. He has abandoned his appeal against sentence. [2] The appellant asserts that the trial judge essentially lumped him together with the co-accused. Once the trial judge found Ms. Anderson guilty, the conviction of the accused seemed to follow almost inevitably. [3] We disagree. The trial judge stated explicitly that “I will deal with the evidence concerning each accused separately”. She then followed through on this statement in the structure and contents of her reasons for judgment. [4] The appellant also contends that the trial judge erred in her labelling of his evidence as “suspect”. For example, he says that he had a good reason for not putting his real Toronto address on the customs declaration form, namely, to provide an address where relatives would be present in case his luggage was lost. [5] We disagree. The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence relating to the appellant, including favourable evidence such as the absence of the appellant’s fingerprints on the rum bottles containing the cocaine. She concluded that “I do not believe Mr. Blair, nor do I consider his story could reasonably be true” and “I am satisfied that the Crown has proved Mr. Blair’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even to the exacting standards of R. v. Lifchus and R. v. Starr.” We see no basis for disagreeing with these conclusions. [6] The appeal is dismissed. “Doherty J.A.” “S. T. Goudge J.A.” “J. C. MacPherson J.A.”