William Sandeson is seen during a live webcast of his Nova Scotia Court of Appeal hearing Friday. Article contentConvicted murderer William Sandeson argued in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on Friday that a trial judge erred on several factors during his trial in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.Subscribe now to access this story and more:Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsSUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES.Subscribe or sign in to your account to continue your reading experience.Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsRegister to unlock more articles.Create an account or sign in to continue your reading experience.Access additional stories every monthShare your thoughts and join the conversation in our commenting communityGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorArticle contentSandeson, 33, is representing himself. Last year, the Appeal Court rejected his request for an order requiring the government to cover the cost of a lawyer to argue his case.Article contentArticle contentTaylor Samson, a 22-year-old physics student, disappeared after going to Sandeson’s apartment on Henry Street in Halifax on the night of Aug. 15, 2015, to sell him 20 pounds, or nine kilograms, of marijuana for $40,000.Article contentArticle contentSamson’s remains have never been recovered.Article contentAfter a trial in February 2023, a jury found Sandeson not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of the lesser offence of second-degree murder. Justice James Chipman ordered him to serve 15 years of his life sentence before he can apply for parole.Article contentSandeson argued that while the trial judge stated the correct legal principles, he erred in his application of those principles to the facts of the case, which led Chipman to find that there wasn’t an unlawful search or seizure at his apartment.Article contentHe said there was nothing to suggest that Samson was in his home, nor that he was in imminent danger, and therefore police shouldn’t have entered the apartment without a warrant. He also argued that by looking in a medicine cabinet and cupboard, it was obvious police weren’t just looking for Samson.Article content“The search itself far exceeded the scope of a wellness check,” Sandeson said. “A DVR recorder was seized without a warrant, and officers were stationed inside the apartment to wait approximately 10 hours for a warrant to be drafted and authorized.”Article contentArticle contentHe said Samson had been missing for three days, and police knew he had not filled his prescription for his liver medication, which should have given them the notion that he could go for months without it.Article contentHis appeal also includes the handling of the fact that a private investigator hired by the defence provided information to police.Article contentSandeson is seeking a stay of proceedings but also says a reduction of his period of parole ineligibility would represent a measurable attempt by the court “to distance itself from the state’s misconduct.”Article contentHe said he is eligible for day parole in less than two years, having spent more than 10 years in prison already since his original arrest.Article contentCrown attorney Tim O’Leary said there was no error in finding that the search was reasonable given the circumstances and the fact that Samson was still missing. He added that any breach of Sandeson’s charter rights would be at best a technical breach, and done in good faith, and would not have had a significant negative impact on Sandeson.Article contentO’Leary said a stay of proceedings would be a “windfall” for Sandeson.Article contentThe three-member Appeal Court panel – consisting of justices Peter Bryson, Anne Derrick and Carole Beaton – reserved its decision.Article content
Court reserves decision on Sandeson’s appeal of murder conviction
