R v S.
Our client was charged with robbery alongside a co-accused. It was alleged that they robbed several people over the course of an afternoon. From the outset, our client steadfastly maintained his innocence and elected to proceed to a preliminary inquiry, requiring the Crown to prove that there was sufficient evidence to justify a trial.
At the preliminary inquiry, we conducted a thorough and strategic cross-examination of the Crown’s key witnesses. After the testimony of only two witnesses, critical weaknesses in the Crown’s case became apparent, including deficiencies in identification and reliability.
In light of the evidence elicited through cross-examination, the Crown withdrew the robbery charge against our client, while the matter against the co-accused proceeded separately.
This case underscores the power of early courtroom advocacy and rigorous cross-examination, and demonstrates how the preliminary inquiry can be a decisive tool in exposing a weak prosecution before a case ever reaches trial.