Duress defence successful as Regina man acquitted

A Queen’s Bench judge found a Regina man not guilty of two robberies, having ruled that he couldn’t discount the man’s claim that he was essentially forced by someone else to commit the offences.

Justice Fred Kovach said there was no doubt Fredrick Allen committed the January 2010 robberies and that, but for the duress claim, there would have been guilty verdicts on two counts of robbery and two counts of assault with a weapon.

Following the verdict, 43-year-old Allen appeared relieved and thanked the judge from where he sat in the prisoner’s box.

Both incidents took place in the early morning hours of Jan. 3, 2010, the first at a service station on the 5000 block of Sherwood Drive and the second, about 1½ hours later, on Eastgate Drive.

Each of the businesses had been manned at the time by a lone employee, each of whom took the stand during Allen’s trial. In his decision handed down on Friday, Kovach noted the testimony of the two complainants appeared to back up what Allen had claimed — that he’d been forced to commit the offences by unnamed people who were waiting for him right outside the businesses.

Kovach said in order to find Allen not guilty under the defence of duress, he had to find the accused was — as argued by defence lawyer Bob Hrycan — subjected to a threat of death or bodily harm to himself or another person and that he believed those threats, committing the offences solely on that basis. Kovach said he also had to find Allen “did not have a safe avenue of escape from the threat” and that there was, overall, a “sufficient air of reality” to the claim of duress.

Crown prosecutor Andrew Davis had argued Allen had an avenue of escape or, at the very least, didn’t investigate what avenues were available to get out of the situation, such as running, hiding or asking the staff to call police. While Kovach said he didn’t buy Allen’s testimony in its entirety, he noted “there is evidence from the two victims that tends to corroborate the accused’s version of events and lend an air of reality to his assertions.”

The judge said both complainants “described the accused as acting more or less polite, friendly and unimpassioned — not descriptors normally used to describe an individual undertaking a robbery.”

Kovach added that Allen made no attempt to disguise himself or avoid surveillance cameras, didn’t take all of the money or other items he could have, didn’t injure either of the employees and even apologized to them during the course of the robberies.

“Both victims appeared, from the accused’s demeanour, to suspect that something in addition to the robbery was going on,” Kovach said, adding that the hotel employee even offered to help Allen by locking the door and calling police when she sensed he was in trouble.

“The accused testified in effect that he neither invited nor accepted offers of assistance due to his concern for what the individuals outside might do in response to an apparent effort to escape or somehow frustrate the robberies,” Kovach said.