The Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a Calgary man who used a COVID-19 mask as a disguise during a bank robbery, ruling that his brief removals from the courtroom during trial did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Background of the Case
Navado Roy Wood, 36, was convicted on November 27, 2023, for robbing a bank on April 1, 2020, early in the pandemic. He wore a mask while ordering a taxi, which drove him to the bank, and after the robbery, he returned to the same taxi. He was sentenced to four years in prison.
Appeal Arguments
Wood appealed his conviction, arguing that his exclusion from the courtroom during two brief objections violated his right under the Criminal Code to be present for his entire trial. The trial judge, Justice Barbara Johnston, had asked Wood to leave while the Crown raised objections about potential alibi evidence and an immigration matter.
In a written judgment, a three-member appeal panel acknowledged the exclusions were an error but found they did not prejudice Wood's trial fairness. “The appellant was excluded from the courtroom twice during the trial. Both times, the exclusions were brief,” the panel wrote.
Details of the Exclusions
The first exclusion occurred during Wood's examination by his lawyer, when the Crown objected to a line of questioning that might suggest an alibi defense requiring advance notice. The trial judge agreed to exclude Wood briefly, but after arguments, she dismissed the objection and ordered him back.
The second exclusion happened during cross-examination when the Crown raised an immigration issue. The defense objected, and Wood was again asked to leave briefly. The judge quickly resolved the matter and allowed him to return.
“We are satisfied on this record that excluding the appellant from the trial proceedings, while an error, did not result in any prejudice,” the appeal judges concluded.
Legal Context
The case highlights the tension between a defendant's right to be present and the need for efficient courtroom proceedings. The appeal court's decision underscores that not every procedural error warrants a new trial, especially when no actual harm is shown.
Wood's conviction and sentence remain in effect. The ruling was published online by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
