Date: 201512 14 Docket: 15/57 Citation: R. v. Hann , 2015 NLCA 57 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: GEORGE CLARENCE HANN APPELLANT AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPLICANT/RESPONDENT Coram: Rowe, White and Harrington JJ.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (G) 201404G0175 Appeal/Application Heard: December 14, 2015 Judgment Rendered: December 14, 2015 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition Filed: December 14, 2015 Counsel for the Appellant: Gary Kearney Q.C. (via video conference) Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent: Iain R.W.

Hollett MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION White J.A.: [ 1 ] The Appellant was charged with a number of offences arising out of an incident alleged to have occurred in December of 2013. The charges included uttering threats ( s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code ) and using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence ( s. 85 of the Criminal Code ). [ 2 ] The Crown elected to proceed by way of

summary conviction in relation to the offense of uttering threats. This matter is still active before the Provincial Court.

[3] In respect of the s. 85 offence, the Appellant elected to be tried in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. He wasconvicted of using a firearm in the commission of the indictable offence of uttering threats and sentenced to 12 months incarceration –the mandatory minimum sentence for this offence. [4] The Appellant appealed to this Court and was released pending appeal. [5] The Crown submitted, citing R. v.

Pringle, (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1645, that an accused “could not beconvicted of using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence unless the accused was actually convicted of the underlyingindictable offence during which the firearm was said to have been used”. [6] As no conviction has been entered in respect of the still active proceeding relating to the underlying offence (uttering threats)the Crown requested that the appeal be expedited and heard without the filing of factums, and consented to the appeal being allowed, theconviction set aside and an acquittal entered. [7] The panel considered the written and oral submissions of counsel and were in agreement with the request of counsel for theCrown as agreed to by counsel for the Appellant.

It was so ordered. _____________________________ C. W. White J.A.