R. v. S.N.

(Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary - Arson/Fraud). SN was charged with arson and fraud in relation to a vehicle that was set on fire for purposes alleged to involve insurance fraud. In this case, police obtained video from the location where the vehicle was parked that showed a couple of masked individuals entering the site where the vehicle was located and then abruptly departing after the vehicle was lit on fire. While it was clear from the video that the vehicle was indeed the target of arson, proving the case was a real "whodunit". In criminal law, "whodunit' prosecutions usually trigger the defence of identification. 

In this case, there was some circumstantial evidence that pointed to the accused.  Unlike "direct evidence" -- such as the fact that the vehicle was set aflame -- "circumstantial evidence" is a kind of evidence from which the trier of fact can draw an inference. The Crown was in a difficult predicament because it could not identify the person's who attended location and set the vehicle ablaze, so the only other path was to rely on circumstantial evidence. The reason why identification from the video was impossible was because the images were low quality captures of persons who were masked. To use circumstantial evidence as the basis for conviction, the Prosecution must prove that the inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference based on the facts of the case. In light of the totality of evidence, there is no way that this could be demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the criminal standard of proof. This standard requires proof of something much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on the balance of probabilities. 

SN pled "not guilty" and the case was set for a multi-day trial. Just prior to the start of trial, the Crown properly directed a "stay of proceedings". A "stay of proceedings" is a Crown power to end a case, with the ability to resurrect the case within one-year from the date of the stay.  Bringing a case back to life after a stay has been entered is no easy task; for it basically requires that the crown come into possession of new evidence that could not have been obtained by any reasonable ingenuity on its part.  

There were many tactical defence considerations in SL's case. While SL had a number of arguments, the lesson from this case is that just because an argument can be made, does mot mean that it is in the accused's best interests to make the argument. 

Arson is a serious criminal offence that often results in penitentiary jail time. SL successfully defended the case. 

David Chow is a full service Alberta criminal defence lawyer based in Calgary. While David routinely handles routine cases, such as allegations of domestic violence, impaired driving and roadside sanctions, he has been an exclusive practicing criminal defence lawyer for more than than 20 years, and as such, handles non-routine cases such as arson, serious crimes of violence (murder, manslaughter) and multi-kilo level drug trafficking cases. Although there are many Calgary criminal lawyers to choose from, the best Calgary criminal lawyer for you is the one whom you have selected after having done your due diligence. Never rely exclusively on a website or Google reviews; for any lawyer can advertise and any business can have questionable reviews. This advice applies to this website, to David Chow, as equally as it applies to the plethora of other lawyers advertising on the Internet. There are a few organically ranked criminal defence websites who have earned their reputation and some who have not. It's important for you to weed through the seemingly endless sea of choices to make the right choice.  Remember, while David Chow wants your business, he also encourages you to recognize that there are several good options and not every quality option advertises online, has Google reviews or even a 5-Star ONLY rating. A five star rating doesn't mean the criminal defence lawyer is capable of doing 5 star work.