R v Janissen

In the case of R v Janissen, the appellant was convicted in the lower court following a trial on four charges related to entering a dwelling at night while armed and in company, and assaulting and robbing the occupants. The appellant was sentenced to a head sentence of eight years with a fixed parole eligibility date. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting a taped prison conversation into evidence, wherein the appellant made reference to disposing of "boxing gear." The complainants had been robbed of a bag containing boxing gear. The appellant argued that the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighed its probative value. Another issue was whether the trial judge should have given a warning to the jury regarding the dangers of convicting on identification evidence where its reliability was disputed.

The court considered the admission of the taped conversation, assessing whether it was relevant and admissible despite its prejudicial nature. The court found that the conversation was relevant as it corroborated other evidence, particularly concerning the disposal of the stolen boxing gear. The court also examined the identification evidence, noting the trial judge's directions to the jury to treat the evidence with care and caution. The court found that the judge's directions adequately addressed the reliability of the identification evidence, and no additional warning was necessary. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the conversation or in the directions given to the jury regarding identification evidence.

The appeal was dismissed by the court. The decision affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.