Travis Wayne Bowcock has lost an appeal of his March 16, 2023 conviction for attempted murder, aggravated assault and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence at a Surrey home on September 23, 2021.
A jury in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster found Bowcock guilty of the charges after a 14-day trial during which the Crown called a lone eyewitness to the shooting who told the court the shooter was black when Bowcock is white.
The victims – Jiwan Garcha and his adult son – answered an early-morning knock at their front door to find a man wearing a police-style vest and hat marked “POLICE."
"The man said he was there to conduct a curfew check on the son, who was subject to a bail order. The son came to the door and the man drew a handgun and opened fire," Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten, of the B.C. Court of Appeal, noted in her April 17 rendered in Vancouver.
"There were multiple shots and the bullets struck both the father and son. The shooter immediately left the scene."
DeWitt-Van Oosten noted the main issue during the trial was the shooter's identity. Garcha testified but his son did not. To find Bowcock guilty, the jury had to concluded beyond a reasonable doubt Bowcock was the suspect at the front door. Garcha – the Crown's start and only witness – wasn't asked to identify the shooter in the courtroom and part of the description he provided didn't match Bowcock.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor conceded this aspect of Garcha's testimony was inaccurate, and to prove it was Bowcock at the door relied on circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crimes, DeWitt-Van Oosten noted, as well as "but not limited to video footage from a closed-circuit television system (CCTV) that captured the shooting."
Bowcock's lawyer argued at appeal that his client should get a new trial on grounds the trial judge's charge to the jury undermined the defence's ability to rely on Garcha's description of the shooter to raise a reasonable doubt.
But DeWitt-Van Oosten dismissed the appeal, with Justices David Harris and Sheri Donegan concurring.
Garcha, who answered the door, told the court he didn't see any tattoos though Bowcock has tattoos all over his face. He said the shooter had "very dark" skin and described him as black or African, "normal height" with a "medium body shape" and about six feet tall and 200 pounds when Bowcock is in fact white, six foot four and 250 pounds.
"Mr. Garcha said the shooter was wearing gloves and a mask, and was dressed in police garb consisting of a black cap marked “POLICE” in yellow lettering, and a black or blue colored sleeveless vest with “POLICE” written across the chest in white lettering," DeWitt-Van Oosten noted. "In closing submissions, Crown counsel conceded that images from the CCTV footage did not show the word “POLICE” across the chest of the shooter."
Bowcock's forehead has tattoos, one on either side, and one directly below his eye.
Garcha told the court he was "wide awake" when he opened the door to the shooter, who stood about three or four feet in front of him, and the area was well-lit.
"He described the shooter as wearing a light blue COVID mask that covered part of his face. He 'could not see his full face' but 'got a good look at him.' Mr. Garcha’s total interaction with the shooter lasted about one minute, perhaps less. At one point, the shooter shone a flashlight into the home. It was a 'very sharp light.'"
The Crown submitted CCTV footage that captured images of the shooter, CCTV footage of a truck connected to Bowcock "that travelled from a particular trailer park to the victims’ residence; testimony placing the appellant at the trailer park, including shortly before the shooting; evidence of the truck having been abandoned near the scene of the shooting; evidence of a call from the appellant’s phone number to a taxi near the location of the abandoned truck; and DNA evidence circumstantially linking the appellant to a hat and glove discarded near the truck. The hat had “POLICE” lettering across the front," the appeal court judge recalled.
The trial judge advised the jury that when considering eyewitness evidence its members must bear in mind "observation and memory are often unreliable when it comes to the identification of others. This is an area where people make honest mistakes. An eyewitness who honestly believes that the accused person is the one they saw committing an offence can be a very convincing witness, even if they are wrong. There is little connection between the confidence of the eyewitness and the accuracy of the identification. A very confident witness may be entirely wrong with respect to their identification evidence."
DeWitt-Van Oosten noted the trial judge told the jury it had a “duty to consider all of the evidence."
"I am of the view these jurors were sufficiently equipped to understand that the differences between Mr. Garcha’s description of the shooter and the appellant, either standing alone or in combination with other evidence, could provide a basis on which to find a reasonable doubt on the issue of identity."
The appeal court concluded that the trial judge's charge to the jury, "although imperfect," met the required standard.
"The appellant has not persuaded me of an error of law. As such, it is not necessary to consider the curative proviso," DeWitt-Van Oosten concluded. "For the reasons provided, I would dismiss the appeal.
