R. v. R. B. – Possession of Firearm

October 17, 2024

Allegations: Mr. Fedorowicz client faced charges of possession of a prohibited firearm. The circumstances were that R.B. was denied entry into a bar by security based on the belief that he was in possession of a firearm. (All events captured by video surveillance.) As R. B. leaves bar in a vehicle, security guard passes on his belief to a plain clothes police officer who was present at the bar. Other officers respond, conducting high risk vehicle stop. Occupants of vehicles, R.B. along with two passengers, removed from vehicle at gun point. A search of the vehicle leads to discovery of firearm underneath R.B.’s seat. If convicted, R.B. faced a lengthy penitentiary prison sentence.

Defence Strategy: Mr. Fedorowicz argued that while the video evidence showed R.B. being excluded from the bar, critically, in the absence of testimony from the security guard, there was no admissible evidence that the actual reason for R.B.’s exclusion was his possession of a firearm. Other reasonable possibilities for his exclusion existed, as were detailed on a sign which listed items that could not be brought inside (observed on the video surveillance), located at the bar’s entrance. Accordingly, in the absence of further evidence connecting R.B. to the firearm (such as forensic evidence by way of DNA or fingerprints), while the firearm being located under the seat were suspicion, the evidence presented at trial fell short of establishing R.B.’s possession of the firearm to the requisite criminal standard of beyond a reasonable.

Result: Trial judge agrees. R.B. found not guilty of all charges.