The Court of Appeal of British Columbia has ruled against allowing a man to appeal convictions related to several cases of armed robbery, two of which occurred in the Sea to Sky.
In a written decision published online, three court justices outlined their reasons for denying the appeal of Thomas Bert Prins. They also denied him leave, or permission, to raise a new issue regarding a potential Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation about his time in custody.
The decision was signed by justices Lauri Ann Fenlon, Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten and Karen Horsman on Jan. 10.
According to the written decision, this case centred around three incidents involving Prins.
He was convicted of seven offences in 2017. Five of those convictions were the result of three incidents that occurred over 10 days in 2012.
The appellate judges' decision summarized the cases.
In the first, Prins was found to have robbed a person of $20 cash in Horseshoe Bay. He used a firearm during the robbery and wore a balaclava.
The second case revolved around Prins breaking through the front glass door of a gas station in Squamish and stealing various items.
Third, Prins robbed someone leaving their workplace in Surrey. In this case, he used a firearm and was wearing a balaclava. He took the victim's keys, vehicle, wallet and mobile device.
Police conducted an undercover 'Mr. Big' operation to investigate Prins, which involved disguised officers speaking to him about at least one of the offences. Their communications became evidence at his trial.
Officers also gathered DNA and surveillance footage, the decision reads.
They also took at least one statement from an acquaintance of Prins, who told officers Prins had spoken to him about the alleged offences.
This person will be identified as X in this story due to a publication ban.
As a result of the Mr. Big operation, Prins led officers to a handgun buried in Stanley Park. The decision noted that Prins identified the weapon as the one he used in the robbery in Surrey.
The decision said Prins was not entitled to possess the firearm. He was also found guilty of uttering threats, as he told undercover officers he wanted to have X killed for implicating him in the crimes. These two circumstances formed the basis for conviction on his sixth and seventh counts.
Prins underwent a trial by judge alone in the Supreme Court, where he was found guilty in 2017.
He sought to appeal the case on Dec. 13, 2022, following lengthy delays on the part of the defence, the appellate judges said.
According to the decision, Prins alleged in his appeal that the trial judge made several errors.
The appellate court said that by Prins' account, the trial judge failed to consider the totality of the evidence, failed to appreciate the context of Prins' interactions with undercover officers and misapprehended evidence, among other things.
The Court of Appeal examined the alleged mistakes identified by Prins. The justices found that these errors did not impact the result of the trial.
First, in the case of the Horseshoe Bay incident, the appellate decision noted that the trial judge stated that Prins told X the person who was the victim of the Horseshoe Bay robbery injured his knees, which was testified to by the victim. However, the Crown accepts X did not include this detail in their evidence.
"In our view, this mistake was neither material nor central to the admissibility ruling," reads the decision.
"The trial judge noted in his reasons on the voir dire that various other details provided by [X] specific to the Horseshoe Bay robbery were independently and objectively confirmed by surveillance videos that captured the relevant events. It is also clear from a reading of the reasons, as a whole, that the evidence of [X] was not the only evidence that led the trial judge to conclude the inculpatory statements should form part of the trial proper."
As identified by Prins, the second alleged error involved a mistake about what X said when describing the tool used to break into the Squamish gas station.
However, the court ruled that the conviction for breaking and entering the gas station was not dependent on the tool used, saying, “This was simply one piece in a much larger puzzle."
Finally, the third alleged error in judgment also involved the Squamish break-in. Prins argued that the information he gave to undercover operators actually came either from an interview he had with police in 2012 or from something he read in the local newspaper.
However, the court did not find this a reasonable argument.
"Shortly put, the explanation given by the accused that he learned the details of these crimes as a result of the evidence presentation by the police is simply untenable and is not credible."
The appellate judges said they found only small, superficial issues in the trial judge’s wording.
Those seeking appeal "must show that their conviction(s) "depend[ed] on a misapprehension of the evidence and the misapprehension [went] to the substance rather than the detail of the trial judge's reasons."
In light of this, the Court of Appeal stated, "In our view, Mr. Prins has not met this test."
Finally, Prins also asked the court for leave — that is, permission — to raise an issue that was not previously examined during his trial.
Appellants may ask the Court of Appeal to entertain a new argument that was not raised during their trial. In order for this to happen, an appellant needs leave, or permission, to make this argument.
The appellate decision noted that when Prins was awaiting trial, he spent time in custody in a unit for the mentally disordered, which he says made a detrimental impact on him.
The decision notes that Prins' lawyer was aware of Prins' segregation during the trial, but for whatever reason did not raise the issue.
"On the record in this appeal, it would not be appropriate for the court to engage in the sought-after analysis, effectively standing as a court of first instance in relation to a matter that could have been raised before the trial judge, but was not," the appellate judges wrote.
As a result, the Court of Appeal denied Prins leave for this issue.
***Feb. 9, 2023, 10:02 a.m.: Edits made for clarity of language. More details about case added.
