The charge of breach of recognizance based on an alleged violation of s. 167 of the Criminal Code was not made out. The trial judge accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the evidence of the appellant and his witness. Accordingly, the appellant was properly convicted. The trial judge erred in entering convictions on both counts. The trial judge did not err in entering convictions on both counts.
Different conduct underlay the two charges and the trial judge dealt with the two counts separately.
The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in failing to impose an absolute discharge. The trial judge carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and decided that notwithstanding the seriousness of the appellant's conduct a jail term should not be imposed. He took into account the time already spent in custody and the consequences that the pre-trial custody had occasioned to the appellant's proposed career. The trial judge found that a discharge would not be in the public interest. In our view, the sentence imposed was a fair one.