David W. Russell

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on two young persons, arguing it was manifestly unfit.

The Crown also sought to establish judicial criteria for the grant of a reprimand by a youth court judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was legally available and that the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offenders.

Both young persons had undertaken substantial rehabilitative measures independently.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault entered after a judge-alone trial.

During the accused’s testimony, the trial judge asked improper questions requiring the accused to explain why the complainant would fabricate the allegation.

The appellate court held that such questioning is improper because it invites one witness to comment on another’s credibility and risks shifting the burden of proof.

The judge’s brief reasons failed to explain why the accused’s evidence was rejected or dispel concern that the improper questioning influenced the verdict.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.