 |
| John L. Hill |
According to a Dec. 7, 2022, report in The Airdrie Echo, Roebuck dismissed his counsel and decided that he was provoked into a confrontation with his neighbour, Daniel MacDonald, who, Roebuck said, threatened to burn Roebuck’s house down with Roebuck inside. Nonetheless, Roebuck was convicted on Dec. 1, 2022, of first-degree murder by Justice Michele Hollins of the Court of Kings Bench, sitting without a jury. The conviction carries an automatic sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility set at 25 years. Roebuck appealed, arguing there was no planning and deliberation, and he was provoked. He wanted a new trial but would settle for a second-degree murder conviction.
The Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s sentence in a unanimous decision of three-panel members handed down on May 1 (R. v. Roebuck, 2024 ABCA 143).
francescoch: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Roebuck was enraged and suggested to his girlfriend that he may have a hitman deal with his former friend. Things came to a head on the afternoon of Sept. 7, 2019, when the two neighbours met at a convenience store gas station. The men argued and punched at one another, with Roebuck knocked to the ground.
Roebuck drove home, retrieved a gun, and when MacDonald returned to his home, Roebuck fired two shots into MacDonald, killing him. The shots, according to a forensic pathologist, were fired from three to four feet away and unlikely from an accidental shooting whereby MacDonald tried to disarm Roebuck by pulling the gun away from him.
Eleven minutes had elapsed from the time of the fight at the gas station until MacDonald was killed. The gun was later found in bushes near another house in the vicinity.
The appeal court noted that Roebuck had not been entirely truthful in giving evidence at trial. A videotape of the fight at the gas pumps showed Roebuck had been hit to the ground just once and not three times as he claimed. The pathologist’s description of the gunshot wounds also conflicted with Roebuck’s description of events.
Roebuck claimed on appeal that the trial judge erred in concluding he had time to plan and deliberate on the murder and further that she had drawn impermissible inferences from after-the-fact conduct that could have less culpable explanations.
The trial judge was aware that planning means a carefully thought-out scheme weighing the nature and the consequences of the action considered (R. v. Nygaard, [1989] 2 SCR 1074). The Nygaard decision also stressed that a plan can be simple and need not be in place for a long time (see also R. v. MMK, 2006 ABCA 284; R. v. Plewes, 2000 BCCA 278; R. v. Henderson, 2012 MBCA 93; and R. v. Fraser, 2016 BCCA 89).
The appeal court held that Roebuck’s actions were deliberate and not impulsive. Action need not be rational, and in almost all cases, evidence of planning and deliberation will come from circumstantial evidence. Even though there was the eleven-minute lapse since the two men parted, circumstantial evidence showed that Roebuck had time to conceive and carry out the retribution he thought MacDonald deserved.
The ground of appeal that the trial judge’s consideration of after-the-fact conduct prejudiced her reasoning on the central issue of planning and deliberation also failed. Roebuck’s hiding the gun might be explained, but the trial judge is entitled to deference in finding alternative explanations as unreasonable (R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, and R. v. Cabrera, 2019 ABCA 184).
The verdict was not unreasonable and was in line with the evidence at trial. The appeal was dismissed.
Roebuck, 63 years old at the time of his conviction, will not be eligible for parole until Sept. 6, 2044. Had he listened to his lawyer’s plea deal negotiations, he could have been eligible for parole nine years earlier.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.