2 total
New trial ordered after flawed reasonable doubt charge and unfair records ruling.
The appellant appealed convictions on multiple historical sexual offence counts arising from allegations by four complainants.
The court held that the jury instructions created a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the reasonable doubt standard by suggesting conviction could follow either proof beyond a reasonable doubt or some lesser level of satisfaction.
The court also held that the trial judge erred in refusing to entertain the self-represented appellant's attempt to obtain child welfare records, and failed in the duty to provide reasonable assistance to an unrepresented accused.
The appeal from conviction was allowed, the convictions and conditional stays were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
Inadequate answer to jury question required a new trial.
The appellant appealed his aggravated assault conviction arising from a group attack in which the Crown relied on party liability under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
During deliberations, the jury asked when any accused had first told police that the complainant had grabbed a co-accused by the testicles, and the trial judge answered only that there was no evidence on that point.
The Court of Appeal held that, in the circumstances, the answer was inadequate because it failed to explain that the accused had no obligation to speak to police on arrest or testify at the preliminary hearing, and that no adverse inference could be drawn from silence.
The omission undermined the right to silence and may have materially affected the jury's assessment of the co-accused's defence, which in turn affected the appellant's conviction as a party.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
