Two people convicted of murder and another convicted of manslaughter for a 2018 homicide in Thompson had their conviction appeals dismissed Nov. 25.
Gregory Hart, who was convicted of manslaughter, also had his sentence appeal dismissed.
The three were appealing convictions stemming from an April 2018 attack outside the Burntwood Hotel that left a 35-year-old man dead. The victim bled to death after suffering three stab wounds, including one that penetrated his jugular vein and another that perforated both his lung and the fluid-filled sac surrounding his heart. He also had 11 slash-type wounds and was also punched and kicked by four assailants.
The fourth person who was convicted of the killing, Carla Wass, found guilty of manslaughter, abandoned her conviction appeal.
The convictions came in October 2021 after a trial by judge alone
The killing occurred after Warren Bradburn and Randall Hastings, both of whom were convicted of second-degree murder, as well as Wass, were in the Burntwood Hotel bar. After a disagreement with the victim, they followed him outside when he left and began to punch and kick him. The judge heard evidence at trial that Hastings pulled a beer bottle out of his pocket, smashed it on the victim’s head and then stabbed him in the neck and chest with the broken bottle.
Hart was walking by the hotel with two other people when he heard Hastings, who was a friend of his, yelling and ran over to join him and Bradburn in their attack. Court also heard from witnesses who said Hastings told them he stabbed the victim in the neck and that he knew he had killed him.
Other evidence at trial included video evidence that showed Hart washing his hands in a snowbank, Bradburn wiping himself with a shirt before turning it inside out and putting it back on, and Hastings cleaning his shoes in the snow and using a shirt to wipe off his hands and arms before lighting the shirt on fire and throwing it into a dumpster.
All four people convicted were arrested within five days of the murder.
Bradburn’s appeal argued that the judge gave inadequate reasons for his conviction and wrongly applied the mens rea requirement for murder — the test through which a judge or jury determines if an accused person had the intent to cause death or behaved in a way that they knew was likely to result in death.
“In our view, it was reasonably open to the trial judge on the whole of the evidence to find that the only reasonable inference arising from punching and kicking an overpowered person, who was also being stabbed during a lengthy group attack, was that Bradburn meant to cause the victim bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause the victim’s death and was reckless whether death ensued or not,” said the Court of Appeal’s written decision, delivered Dec. 8.
In his appeal, Hastings argued that the judge failed to consider evidence of intoxication, anger and potentially provocative behaviour when finding that he had the required intent for murder. He also said the judge came to an unreasonable verdict because the eyewitness evidence identifying him at the person who stabbed the victim was unreliable.
“There was ample evidence supporting the factual findings and inferences drawn by the trial judge regarding Hastings’s actions, role in the offence and his level of intoxication.,” the appeals judges found.
Hart’s appeal said his conviction was unreasonable because the only evidence against him was a video-recorded statement of a witness who said during cross-examination at trial that he may have been mistaken when he told police he saw Hart hitting the victim.
“The trial judge was entitled to accept the minor witness’s video-recorded statement and … he adequately dealt with the inconsistencies in the overall evidence and reconciled them logically,” said the appeal court ruling. “Furthermore, different corroborative evidence supported aspects of the minor witness’s testimony. The trial judge made no error in weighing the evidence and the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury or a judge could reasonably have rendered.”
The appeal of Hart’s nine-year prison sentence was made on the grounds that it was considerably harsher than the six years given to Wass and that the trial judge discounted factors relating to his personal circumstances. These arguments were rejected by the appeal court.
“Hart’s moral culpability is illustrated by the fact that he joined the attack at a point where the victim was very obviously helpless and there was no need for Hart to ‘help his bro,’” the ruling found. “We note that, at the sentencing, the Crown sought a sentence of 15 years and Hart suggested a sentence of seven years would be appropriate—only two less than the sentence imposed.”
