3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld convictions and a 15-month sentence for online child luring, but corrected an unlawful 10-year SOIRA order to the mandatory 20 years.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Noah Dunnett’s conviction and sentence appeals for two counts of child luring, and allowed the Crown’s cross-appeal only to increase the SOIRA order from 10 to 20 years.
The court found no error in the trial judge’s handling of s. 11(b) Charter delay, the Garofoli application, or the sentence imposed.
The court emphasized the seriousness of child luring offences and the deference owed to trial judges on sentencing, especially where mitigating factors exist.
The SOIRA order was corrected to comply with statutory minimums.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding the trial judge misapprehended material evidence regarding corroborating bruises in a sexual assault case.
The appellant, A.S., appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife, alleging the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and provided inadequate reasons.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by misapprehending J.R.'s testimony regarding leg bruises, which was central to the conviction's corroboration finding.
Furthermore, the trial judge improperly relied on a prior consistent statement as corroboration.
This misapprehension of evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
The court dismissed the appeal against child pornography convictions, upholding the circumstantial evidence assessment.
The appellant was convicted of child pornography offences and offences associated with sexual touching of his daughter.
Three series of photographs depicting the victim were found on the Internet.
The appellant admitted to taking innocent photographs but denied taking the pornographic ones and denied distributing any photographs.
He suggested the victim's mother and her new boyfriend had opportunity to commit the offences.
The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and found the circumstances consistent with the appellant's guilt with no reasonable alternative inferences.
The appeal was dismissed.