James Coulter

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his wife.

He argued the trial judge erred by engaging in propensity reasoning regarding an audio recording, misapprehending evidence of unconscious collusion between the complainant and her children, and applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the audio recording was properly used to assess credibility, the trial judge reasonably rejected the possibility of unconscious collusion, and the credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The accused was charged with multiple drug and weapons offences following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

Police located four individuals in the home, along with significant quantities of narcotics, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms.

The court applied the principles of constructive possession to determine whether the accused had knowledge and control of the seized items.

The accused was found guilty of possessing the items located in his personal bedroom, including a rifle under the bed, but was acquitted of possessing items found in common areas or in the immediate vicinity of other occupants.

The respondent psychiatrist brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because the CTO in question had expired and a new CTO had been issued.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the appeal was not moot as the appellant was subject to a series of rolling CTOs, making the validity of a predecessor order relevant.

The court also held that even if moot, special circumstances warranted hearing the appeal to prevent substantial injustice.

The respondent's motion to introduce fresh evidence was reserved for the judge hearing the appeal.

The accused, who is charged with sexually assaulting a deaf woman at a shelter, sought a review of his bail decision, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The accused, who lives with paranoid schizophrenia, proposed a release plan involving supervision by the John Howard Society and living in a rented room.

The court acknowledged the accused's heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 but found the proposed plan lacked adequate supervision.

The application for bail was dismissed, and the accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.