Our Trial Experience

R. v. S. E. - TRIAL
March 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in North York	Aggravated Assault	S.E. was charged as a result of a fight that took place at an after-hours party. The complainant sustained a significant injury when she was hit in the head with a bottle. The complainant and several other witnesses reported that S.E. was the person who attacked the complainant. The Crown proceeded by Indictment and S.E. elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. At the trial, the complainant and three witnesses testified. S.E. testified in her defence. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY. Mr. Owoh’s cross-examination focused on the frailties of the identification evidence provided by all of the witnesses, including the lack of opportunity for the witnesses to make accurate observations. Mr. Owoh effectively established that the evidence identifying S.E. was not reliable.

R. v. B. F. - JURY TRIAL
July 2014

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto	Attempt Murder, Aggravated Assault, Unauthorized Possession Firearm, Possession Restricted Firearm with Ammunition, Possession Firearm Knowing Unauthorized, Possession Firearm While Prohibited, Possession Firearm Serial Altered and Point Firearm	B.F. was charged as a result of a shooting that occurred in the basement of a building complex unit. B.F. shot the complainant in the body and leg multiple times after being followed into the basement by the complainant and two other persons. The complainant testified at the trial and said that he had been shot by B.F. who had a gun. B.F. testified at the trial and said that he had taken the gun away from the complainant and shot in self defence. The trial was 9 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh effectively cross-examined the witnesses to advance B.F.'s self-defence argument. Mr. Owoh delivered a powerful and compelling closing address to the jury.

R. v. J. J. - TRIAL
September 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton	Robbery with Imitation Firearm, Breach Probation	J.J. was charged for an armed robbery that took place at an ATM machine. The complainant was approached from behind by a hooded man after she had withdrawn money from the ATM. The man was armed with what appeared to be a handgun which he used to poke the complainant before taking the money. The robbery was captured on CCTV surveillance from the ATM machine. The complainant provided a statement to the police at which time she picked J.J.’s photograph from a lineup that she viewed. The Crown proceeded by Indictment and J.J. elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. At the trial, both the complainant and J.J. testified. The main issue was the identity of J.J. as the armed robber. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. In spite of the identification of J.J. from a photo lineup, Mr. Owoh effectively established that the complainant’s identification was unreliable – she was very hesitant in her identification from the lineup, in addition to her inability to accurately identify any features of the robber from the time of the incident. In addition, Mr. Owoh argued the principles in the case of R. v. Nikolovski regarding the legal approach to the surveillance evidence.

R. v. G. L - JUDGE ALONE TRIAL
January 2015

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Superior Court of Justice in Peterborough	Robbery, Assault with Weapon x3, Disguise and Possession Prohibited Weapon	G.L. was charged with a home invasion robbery that involved the use of weapons, including bear spray. Two other persons who were charged with the robbery gave the police information that G.L. was involved. One glove was found outside the scene of the robbery that had evidence of G.L.'S DNA on it. A matching glove was found in G.L.'s vehicle when he was arrested. The witnesses who gave information to the police about G.L.'s involvement testified at the trial. A Crown DNA expert testified about the DNA results. G.L. did not testify at the trial. The trial was 8 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh skillfully cross-examined the witnesses who involved B.G. in the robbery and established that their evidence was not reliable. He also effectively cross-examined the DNA expert and argued that the evidence could have been transferred onto the glove by other means.

R. v. Y. A. – TRIAL
June 2013

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto - 311 Jarvis	Break & Enter and Possession Stolen Property	The police responded to a report of a residential break and enter in progress. When they arrived at the residence, three individuals ran from the house and fled on foot. The police, both on foot and in vehicles, chased the individuals through a large park. They located property from the house that had been discarded along the path that the individuals had taken. Y.A. was arrested coming out of the park. The arresting officer testified that he observed that Y.A. was running, was out of breath and had mud on the bottom of his pants. Y.A. testified at the trial. The trial was 4 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh argued that there was no direct evidence that Y.A. was one of the individuals who ran from the house and through the park. Mr. Owoh effectively cross-examined the police officers who chased the individuals and the officer who arrested Y.A., and he argued that their evidence was unreliable.

R. v. J. W. - TRIAL
June 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton	Assault x2	J.W. was charged as a result of an incident with the mother of his child. She alleged that J.W. physically assaulted her during a verbal argument. At the trial, both the complainant and J.W. testified. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh’s cross examination of the complainant established some concerns around her motive to lie.

R. v. A. B. - TRIAL
October 2015

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Scarborough	Assault Cause Bodily Harm, Assault with Weapon	A.B. was charged when he sliced another resident in his apartment building with a utility knife. The incident occurred in the doorway of A.B.'s apartment and the complainant was cut in the face and hands. The complainant testified at the trial and said that he was attacked by A.B. A.B. testified that was defending himself against an attack by the complainant. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh skillfully cross-examined the complainant, in addition to properly preparing A.B. to testify in his defence. Mr. Owoh argued the legal principles of Self Defence.

R. v. D.T. - TRIAL
March 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton	Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference	D.T. was charged when his adult step-sister made an allegation that he had sexually assaulted her when she was very young. She disclosed the allegations to her boyfriend and family. D.T. maintained that the allegations were fabricated. The Crown proceeded by Indictment and D.T. elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Both the complainant and D.T. testified at the trial. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh skillfully cross-examined the complainant in order to advance D.T.’s defence. Mr. Owoh also effectively prepared D.T. to testify at the trial.

R. v. D. W. - TRIAL
April 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton	Sexual Assault x2, Forcible Confinement, Uttering Threats	D.W., a youth, was charged as a result of allegations made by the complainant who attended the same school as D.W. The complainant provided a statement to the police in which she described an incident involving sexual intercourse with D.W. D.W. also provided a statement to the police acknowledging the incident but describing it as consensual. At the trial, the only issue for the defence was consent. The complainant testified at the trial but did not complete her evidence. The trial was 1 day long.	All charges WITHDRAWN. The Crown Attorney withdrew the charges against D.W. upon hearing the evidence of the complainant.

R. v. K. A. - TRIAL
May 2017

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton	Sexual Assault, Uttering Threats, Forcible Confinement	K.A. met the complainant through a mutual friend during the day and she ultimately returned with K.A. to his residence in the evening. The complainant stayed at K.A.’s residence overnight. She left the residence in the morning and subsequently reported that she had been sexually assaulted by K.A. K.A. did not deny that there was sexual intercourse with the complainant, however he maintained that it was consensual. The Crown proceeded by Indictment and K.A. elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. At the trial, the complainant did attend. The Crown Attorney brought an application before the trial judge to use the DVD statement that the complainant gave to the police in place of her testifying at the trial. The trial was 2 days long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. Mr. Owoh skillfully opposed the Crown Attorney’s application to use the complainant’s statement instead of her testimony in court. The trial judge dismissed the Crown’s application and K.A. was found not guilty.

R. v. O. M. - JUDGE ALONE TRIAL
March 2016

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Superior Court of Justice in Milton	Possession Cocaine and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine x2	O.M. was followed by a police officer while O.M. was driving a rental vehicle. The officer conducted surveillance on O.M. and detained him when he suspected drug related criminal activity. The officer arrested O.M. and upon searching his vehicle located a quantity of cocaine and cash. The defence filed an application at the trial arguing that the officer breached O.M.'s Charter rights under section 9 (arbitrary detention) and section 8 (unlawful search). The trial was 1 day long.	NOT GUILTY on all charges. After a skillful and methodical cross-examination of the arresting officer and the exhibits officer, the Federal Crown invited the judge to dismiss the charges. The money that was seized from O.M. during the investigation was order to be returned.

R. v. S. A. – JURY TRIAL
December 2012

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Superior Court of Justice in Brampton	Importing Heroin x3 and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Heroine	S.A. was charged along with two other co-defendants for importing 116 kg of heroin on three separate occasions. As of the date of trial, this was the largest recorded importation of heroin into Canada. Most of the drugs were imported using the S.A.’s business. The evidence against S.A. included wiretapped telephone conversations and voluminous records seized from S.A.’s home and business. At the trial, the other two defendants testified that S.A. was responsible for all of the drugs that were imported. S.A. did not testify at the trial. The trial was 3 months long.	NOT GUILTY on all counts. The other two defendants were convicted. In a powerful and compelling closing address to the jury, Mr. Owoh argued that the evidence did not prove that S.A. knew about the heroine that was imported. Mr. Owoh skillfully deflected the attacks made by the two other defence lawyers and established S.A.'s innocence without him testifying.

R. v. P. T. - SENTENCING
November 2016

Location:	Charges:	Facts:	Disposition:
Ontario Court of Justice in Milton	Robbery Use Firearm x9, Point Firearm x7, Face Masked x7, Possession Property x2, Weapons Dangerous, Breach Recognizance x3, Breach Disposition and Assault Use Weapon	P.T., a youth, was charged for a spree of robberies in which he used a firearm to assault and intimidate some of the victims. The offences spanned over several jurisdictions and included gas stations, coffee shops and several motor vehicles. P.T. was arrested, along with two other persons, after a high speed police chase. P.T. entered guilty pleas to some of the charges. The Crown filed an application requesting that an adult sentence be imposed on P.T.	YOUTH SENTENCE imposed. The judge denied the Crown's application and imposed a youth sentence. Mr. Owoh made thorough and knowledgeable submissions on the legal principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act that govern the application for an adult sentence.

TRIAL EXPERIENCE