R. v. Mohammed

R. v. Mohammed

Application denied because the proposed appeal depended on credibility findings to which appellate deference applies, the chance of success was very limited, and the sentence did not place the appellant's liberty significantly at risk, so Crown-funded transcripts were not justified.

Citation
2011 BCSC 1096
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Adel Abdullah Mohammed
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Conviction / Application for Transcript Funding for Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Transcript Funding, Summary Conviction Appeal, Credibility Findings, Statutory Appeal Test S.686/s.822
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Appeals Court Procedure Transcript Funding Summary Conviction Appeal Credibility Findings Statutory Appeal Test S.686/s.822

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Adel Abdullah Mohammed

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Conviction / Application for Transcript Funding for Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown must pay for trial transcripts for an appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's liberty is sufficiently at stake to warrant transcript funding

Ratio Decidendi

Application denied because the proposed appeal depended on credibility findings to which appellate deference applies, the chance of success was very limited, and the sentence did not place the appellant's liberty significantly at risk, so Crown-funded transcripts were not justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order for the Crown to pay for trial transcripts