James Currie

The accused was tried for sexual assault and unlawful confinement of a young employee following a work-related meeting at the accused's home.

The employee became highly intoxicated and passed out, later waking up to find the accused sexually touching him.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's denials and relying on the complainant's testimony, which was supported by circumstantial DNA evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt regarding physical restraint.

The accused was charged with firearm and robbery offences following an armed robbery of two victims by multiple perpetrators who fled in a black Jeep.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's DNA found on a handgun and a soda can in the abandoned getaway vehicle, cell tower data, and weak photo lineup identifications.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable and the circumstantial evidence open to inferences consistent with innocence, such as secondary DNA transfer.

Concluding the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court dismissed the charges and acquitted the accused.

In a mid-trial motion, the accused sought to exclude a forensic DNA analysis on the basis that police handling of cloth restraints during an earlier trial created a serious risk of contamination.

The court held that, even accepting the factual allegations regarding handling and continuity, the complaint went to the weight of the DNA evidence rather than its admissibility.

Applying the trial judge’s case-management authority, the court found there was no reasonable likelihood that a voir dire would assist in determining admissibility.

The application was summarily dismissed as unmeritorious and brought too late.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.