Woman receives nine months house arrest for printing money

By Medicine Hat News on April 19, 2024.

@MedicineHatNews

A Medicine Hat woman accused of using a home printer to reproduce Canadian currency was sentenced to nine months of house arrest and curfew following a guilty plea Thursday morning in Court of Justice at Medicine Hat.

Court heard that police received a tip from a confidential informant and took several people into custody at the women’s apartment in April 2022.

They reported to have recovered a fake $50 bill on a printer in the common area while executing a search warrant Several versions of counterfeit $20 and $50 bills were recovered in a wastepaper basket nearby and a digital “template” was found on her phone, according to police.

Defence attorney Justin Dean told the court the woman has had substance abuse issues in the past but has cleaned up her life to a large degree.

She has five children, and a prison term would represent a hardship for the family, Dean argued.

Justice Gordon Krinke imposed a sentence of 270 days, the first half under 24-hour house arrest, then the remainder under a curfew of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m, as well as other general conditions.

New trial ordered

A Medicine Hat man found guilty in 2022 of breaking into a house, uttering threats and assault with a weapon has been awarded a new trial by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The case was introduced at docket court Thursday for the matter to be scheduled after the appeal court ruled on March 14 that new evidence from a body-worn police camera and errors by a defence lawyer not to introduce it, invalidated a court finding of guilt in a October 2022 trial.

The man argued at trial that he lived in the residence in question and was returning to retrieve some possessions and there were discrepancies in the accusation.

A post incident video interview of the person making the complaint is the focus of the new evidence.

A three-justice panel ruled last month that the substance of the break and enter is in question, and other questions necessitate the need for a new trial.

“The appellant’s conviction for breaking and entering cannot stand,” the decision reads. “The evidence in relation to the remaining charges contained inconsistencies that the trial judge did not acknowledge or sufficiently address.”

The matter is now in scheduling process.

16
-15