Ms. Dingwall, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Richet, the three appellants, were convicted of aggravated assault and various firearm offences in connection to a drive-by shooting. At trial, the Crown’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. The trial judge concluded that Mr. Russell and Mr. Richet were guilty as principals or aiders or abettors for all charges. Ms. Dingwall was found guilty as an aider or abettor for the charges relating to the drive-by shooting and as a principal or aider or abettor for the charges related to the burning of a truck.The three appellants appealed their respective convictions. The majority of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeals. It held that the verdicts were not unreasonable. In dissent, Butler J.A. disagreed with the disposition of Ms. Dingwell’s appeal related to the drive-by shooting charges. Ms. Dingwall’s participation in the offences were not the only rational inference on the evidence. The verdict was therefore unreasonable.Ms. Dingwell appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related