Defence cites ‘huge lack of evidence’ in firearms case

A defence lawyer said he “couldn’t imagine a worse case for the Crown” during a trial for a man who allegedly fired a gun at a door his ex-girlfriend was hiding behind.

“There’s a huge lack of evidence for the discharge of a firearm and a similar complete lack of evidence of (his) possession of a firearm or ammunition,” defence lawyer Philip Sieklicki said in Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench. “The case is simply just not made out.”

The lawyers made their closing arguments on Thursday, wrapping up a four-day trial for a 23-year-old man facing charges of reckless discharge of a firearm, assault and possession of a firearm and ammunition while prohibited.

A publication ban on information that could identify the victim was ordered on the second day of trial at the Crown’s request. The Sun has chosen not to name the accused to ensure the ban is not breached.

On the first day of the trial, the alleged victim testified that she and the accused got into an argument that stemmed from allegations of infidelity on March 27, 2023, during which she went in the bathroom and locked the door.

She told the court the man was yelling and banging on the door. After she called 911 and the accused left the residence, she said she saw what appeared to be a bullet hole on the exterior of the door and later found shell casings — one in the hallway roughly 10 feet from the bathroom and five more in the bedroom.

While she testified that she didn’t hear or smell a gunshot, she believed the accused shot at the door with a long gun she had seen him use before. She said he used it to shoot her mattress in the past.

“We don’t have a bullet,” Sieklicki said. “Not only do we not have a bullet, but we don’t have any fragments of a bullet. We don’t have any ballistic evidence, no evidence of gunpowder residue, none of that. Even (the alleged victim) says that she didn’t specifically hear a gunshot having been fired.”

He said there are several possibilities of what could have happened, including that the woman was mistaken about whether the hole was there before or that the accused made the hole some other way.

The casing found in the hallway could have been kicked or moved by the woman’s cats away from the other shells, he said.

“If a bullet was found in the door, this case would be very different. If there was gunpowder residue on the door, this case would have been very different,” Sieklicki said.

He argued that the alleged victim had several discrepancies in her testimony and that she was “doing everything she could to try to pin charges” on the accused.

“(She) had a motive to make up a story against (the accused), and that was the fact that she believed he was cheating on her.”

There were also problems proving that the .22-calibre rifle and two BB handguns, which police seized from the accused’s belongings, were his, Sieklicki said.

He said there were no fingerprints taken from or DNA tests done on the firearms or ammunition and there was no gunpowder residue test done on the accused.

There was no identification specifically with the firearm, other than a prescription bottle with his name on it grouped in with his belongings, which Sieklicki said only proved the bottle was his.

As for the assault charge, Sieklicki admitted that it was the strongest case for the Crown.

Crown attorney Grant Hughes said that while there was no eyewitness that saw the accused discharge the firearm, there was “sufficient circumstantial evidence to indicate that he did so.”

He said Const. Travis Foster, an identification officer with the Brandon Police Service, testified that the hole in the bathroom door was consistent with a .22-calibre bullet.

The defence’s only witness, Mike Knipping, who is a competitive shooter and president of the Brandon Wildlife Association’s Junior Rifle team, also agreed that the hole was consistent with a .22-calibre shot.

“It is admittedly odd that the bullet did not penetrate both sides of the door. However, you heard testimony that sometimes bullets, especially cheaply made, can have problems with firing, whether a complete misfire or sometimes an underpowered firing,” Hughes said.

Foster also testified that there were five bullet holes in the mattress, which Hughes said explains why there were five shell casings in the bedroom and one closer to the bathroom.

Hughes said the bullet was not recovered because the officer didn’t take apart the door to see if it was inside. Foster testified that he didn’t want to put that financial burden and inconvenience on the alleged victim.

“The only logical explanation … is that (the accused) fired a shot from the .22-calibre rifle, the bullet for which was, for some reason, faulty, and made that hole he shot into the door.”

He said the reason the woman called police in the first place was because of threats the accused made about harming himself, which is inconsistent with the defence’s claim that she was trying to pin charges on him.

It was only later, when she went to the police station for the purpose of getting a no-contact order, that she showed the officer the shell casings, which prompted the firearms investigation.

For the weapons charge, Hughes said the accused was subject to a 10-year firearms prohibition in 2019. He said the alleged victim and her sister accurately described the rifle, which they said the accused owned, during their testimonies.

He also pointed out that the accused’s sister showed police where his belongings were at her residence, confirming they belonged to the accused.

Because the rifle was loaded, Hughes said this means the accused was also in possession of ammunition, adding that police seized another small bag of ammunition from his belongings.

Hughes said that video evidence of the bathroom door being forcefully pushed open and photos of bruises are evidence of an assault.

Justice Elliot Leven reserved his decision. The next court date on the matter is scheduled for December.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com