R v Stewart & Garcia

The appellants, Stewart and Garcia, were found guilty in the Supreme Court of two counts of murder each. The prosecution was unable to identify the actual killer, with the possibility that it was either Stewart, Garcia or a third person. The appellants appealed against their convictions and sentences. The court had to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and if the trial judge erred in ordering a joint trial.

The court considered the prosecution's reliance on the party provisions of the Criminal Code to prove guilt. It held that the verdicts were open to the jury and were not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence. The court also addressed the appellants' claims that the trial judge erred in ordering a joint trial and that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's direction, and the risk of the jury using the inadmissible evidence against Stewart was averted.

The court further addressed the appellants' claims that their sentences were manifestly excessive. The trial judge had considered the statutory minimum non-parole period of 20 years insufficient given the circumstances and increased it to 25 years. The court held that the increases in the non-parole periods did not make the sentences manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals against their convictions and refused their applications for leave to appeal against their sentences. The final orders were that the appeals against conviction were dismissed, and the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.