Convicted murderer William Sandeson denied bail pending appeal

HALIFAX, N.S. — A Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge has denied William Michael Sandeson bail pending an appeal of his conviction for second-degree murder in the 2015 killing of a fellow Dalhousie University student, saying his detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

“Mr. Sandeson failed to persuade me that he should be released,” Justice David Farrar, who heard the bail application Oct. 26, said in a written decision released Wednesday.

“Mr. Sandeson’s application fails on the public interest criterion. His grounds of appeal, which I consider to be weak, are also relevant to consideration of the public interest.”

Last February, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court jury found the former medical student guilty of second-degree murder in the Aug. 15, 2015, shooting of Taylor Samson during a drug deal at Sandeson’s apartment on Henry Street in Halifax.

In April, Justice James Chipman sentenced Sandeson to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 15 years.

It was Sandeson’s second trial in connection with Samson’s death. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder in 2017, but that conviction was overturned by the Appeal Court in 2020 and a new trial ordered. 

Sandeson, 31, did not give evidence at his first trial but chose to testify at his second trial. He admitted he shot and killed Samson but insisted it was in self-defence.

The jurors rejected the self-defence argument and convicted Sandeson of second-degree murder.

Chipman, in sentencing Sandeson, found he lured Samson to his apartment under the guise of a drug deal, but really for the purpose of robbing him of the 20 pounds, or nine kilograms, of marijuana he brought with him.

Samson was shot within three minutes of arriving at the apartment. Sandeson then cleaned the apartment and placed Samson’s body in a duffel bag.

The next morning, Sandeson drove to Colchester County and disposed of Samson’s body, phone and other evidence. He dumped the body in an aboiteau leading into the Salmon River, which flows into the Bay of Fundy.

Sandeson continued to ditch evidence over the next two days, hiding some on his family’s farm in Lower Truro.

Samson’s remains have never been found.

Sandeson filed an appeal in May, arguing his trial was an abuse of process, there were breaches of his charter rights during the investigation, and the trial judge made errors in his instructions to the jury.

The appeal is scheduled to be heard in June 2024.

Proposed bail plan

At last week’s hearing, Sandeson proposed being released on a $503,000 bail plan with five sureties — his parents and three brothers. He proposed to be fitted with a GPS ankle bracelet, to live with his parents at their farm and to have one of his sureties with him at all times. 

He also offered to provide police remote access to the video cameras installed at the family home and to ensure the constant operation of the cameras. He would only be allowed to leave the family home to do chores on the farm, attend Sunday church services at Old Barns United Church, go to court and for medical emergencies and appointments.

“I love my family dearly and will not do anything to betray the trust they have in me or cause them financial ruin,” Sandeson wrote in an affidavit. 

Crown attorney Mark Scott opposed Sandeson’s release, saying “there is substantial public interest in his detention.”

Scott said the record shows Sandeson has a history of lies and deceit, “including to those people that he today claims to have such trust and respect for.” He pointed out that Sandeson concealed evidence on the farm and hid the marijuana he stole from Samson in the basement of a Halifax apartment building where his brother Adam lived.

This is the fifth time Sandeson has been denied bail since his arrest Aug. 18, 2015. He was turned down in Supreme Court three times — in October 2015, January 2021 and October 2021 — and in the Appeal Court in November 2022.

No presumption of innocence

In his decision, Farrar explained that bail on appeal is different than pre-trial release. “Mr. Sandeson no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence that applied at the time of his trial,” the Appeal Court judge said.

Sandeson had the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that his appeal is not frivolous, that he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of a bail order and that his detention is not necessary in the public interest.

Farrar said he was satisfied Sandeson would surrender himself into custody. He then turned his mind to the public interest criterion, which he said has two components: public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The public confidence component involves the weighing of the competing interests of enforceability and reviewability, the judge said.

“As (the Supreme Court of Canada’s Oland decision) explains, the enforceability component reflects the need to respect the general rule of the immediate enforceability of judgments,” Farrar wrote.

“Put another way, it is expected that Mr. Sandeson will be held to account by continuing to serve the sentence imposed on him. The reviewability component reflects the recognition that our criminal justice system is not fail-safe and that the appellant challenging the legality of their convictions should be entitled to a meaningful review.”

The ultimate determination of the merits of appeal will be left to the Appeal Court panel that hears the case, Farrar said. 

“However, Mr. Sandeson faces a significant hurdle to make out the errors he alleges,” he said. “There is a high level of deference accorded to judicial determinations of abuse of process, admission of evidence and the sufficiency of a jury (instruction).

“Mr. Sandeson has admitted to shooting Mr. Samson, and his (argument) of self-defence was not successful. The only logical conclusion is the jury found he intended to kill Mr. Samson.

“The evidence for conviction for second-degree murder was strong. The grounds of appeal appear to be weak. This is one of those circumstances where the public interest in enforceability is very high and outweighs the reviewability interest.

“The motion for bail pending appeal is dismissed.”