Robbery with a Firearm Charges Dismissed

Our criminal lawyer in Calgary, Jillian, recently represented a young man charged with robbery with a firearm 3 times. It was alleged that her client participated in robbery to the extent that he aided and abetted the primary accused person. The prosecutor’s theory was that Ms. Williamson’s client assisted the principal robber when (as the prosecutor alleged) her client drove the getaway car and took several items from the complainants. In this case, it was alleged that Ms. Williamson’s client along with the principal were passengers in a car. The complainant and another person were driving to a remote location at the behest of the principal. At one point, it was alleged that the principal pulled out a sawed-off shotgun and hit one of the complainants in the back of the head. He demanded that the car be pulled over and stopped. The principal got out of the vehicle and into the passenger seat. Ms. Williamson’s client drove away, leaving the complainants along the side of the road. One of the complainants messaged Ms. Williamson’s client demanding that he give her car back. Several messages were obtained from the complainant that was sent (allegedly between the two). The prosecutor intended to rely on these messages as post-offence conduct.

The legal issues at trial were party liability and men's rea. Section 21 of the Criminal Code sets out several ways that one person can be guilty of an offence even though he or she did not actually commit the offence. This section included anyone who commits the offence (called the Principal Offender), anyone who aids in the commission of the offence either through the act or an omission or anyone who abets any person in the commission of the offence. Another subsection under section 21 provides that two or more people who form a common intention to carry out an unlawful purpose will be deemed parties to the offence whatever the offence the other commits in furtherance of that common intention provided that they knew (or, in limited cases, simply ought to have known) that the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out their mutually intended unlawful purpose.

In order for the prosecutor to be successful, he had to convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Williamson’s client, through his omission to stop the robbery and through his act of being the getaway driver, had the intent to commit the robbery.

At the end of the trial day, Ms. Williamson’s client walked away a free man. This case demonstrates that a careful and detailed analysis of the facts alleged as applied to the law is needed to build a successful argument. It also demonstrates that your lawyer must be diligent in their work. Ms. Williamson’s client walked away from a potential mandatory minimum jail sentence as a free man.