Sask. man’s latest appeal attempt dismissed by Supreme Court

Article content

The appeal of a man convicted for the robbery of a Regina pizza joint has been dismissed by Canada’s highest court.

Article content

Article content

Thomas Stevenson was found guilty of robbery and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence, based on the testimony of his former gang associate.

While he appealed the decision of provincial court Judge Marylynne Beaton, her ruling was upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (SKCA). But that 2-1 split decision paved the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Article content

The case engages the issue of evidence given by a person characterized as an “unsavoury witness,” also known as a Vetrovec witness.

Vetrovec is the abbreviated name for a 1982 Supreme Court of Canada decision that provides guidance on the issue.

According to case law, such witnesses are people who, “because of their amoral character, criminal lifestyle, past dishonesty, or interest in the outcome of the trial, cannot be trusted to tell the truth.”

Judges are required to take special care with evidence from such witnesses.

(For a more in-depth look at the 2016 robbery and ‘unsavoury’ witnesses, click here.)

In 2019, years after the Dec. 11, 2016 robbery of a Regina Trifon’s Pizza restaurant, police arrested a gang member who offered to give them information on other gang members in exchange for witness protection.

He was shown video footage from seven unsolved robberies. While six apparently stumped him, he identified Stevenson in the seventh, along with an accomplice.

The sole issue at Stevenson’s trial was identity, which hinged on the evidence of the gang member, known in court documents as C.S.

Article content

Article content

The convicted man took issue with the judge’s approach to the evidence given by C.S. He made similar submissions at both the SKCA and the SCC, before which his lawyer Thomas Hynes argued the case on Nov. 8.

He contended the trial judge made mistakes in a number of areas.

Hynes argued the trial judge improperly turned an absence of evidence of a motive for C.S to lie — and more specifically the good relationship C.S “professed” to have with Stevenson — into something that “erased” the concerns she had about C.S. as an unsavoury witness.

Further, he suggested the judge wrongly used context provided by C.S. about things he saw in the surveillance video — for example, the gun and the robber’s gait — as supportive of his credibility. Hynes pointed out C.S. was shown the video before providing the details.

In addition, C.S. described a height difference between Stevenson and his accomplice. However, Hynes pointed to the judge’s statement that both robbers “could even be the same height,” based on the surveillance video. Hynes said the judge’s failure to “account for this inconsistency” was an error of law.

Article content

Hynes was questioned by SCC judges, and held his positions, which were nuanced and not fully explored in this article. In the end, he asked the court to order Stevenson a new trial.

The SCC also heard submissions from Crown lawyer Andrew Davis, who made arguments to counter those made by Hynes and also fielded questions from judges.

Judges also received brief submissions from Tony Paisana on behalf of the Independent Criminal Defence Advocacy Society.

The court delivered its decision orally earlier this month. A four-judge majority dismissed the appeal, while a fifth would’ve allowed it.

The court’s reasons for the decision have not yet been released.

[email protected]

The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe.

With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.

Article content