COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DATE: 20000317
DOCKET: C29771
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent)
v. LAWRENCE HOLT (Appellant)
BEFORE: OSBORNE A.C.J.O., FINLAYSON and LABROSSE JJ.A.
COUNSEL: John Hale,
for the appellant
Trevor Shaw,
for the respondent
HEARD: March 15, 2000
On appeal from his conviction by Madame Justice Monique Métivier,
sitting alone, on December 4, 1997
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The appellant was convicted on December 4, 1997 by Madame
Justice Métivier of sexual assault and sexual touching. He
appeals his conviction.
[2] The appellant raises the following five grounds of appeal:
- Unreasonable verdict
[3] The trial judge was clearly aware of the inconsistencies in
the complainant's evidence relating to the sexual abuse incidents
and disclosures. The trial judge made a detailed review of the
inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and the details of
disclosure. In the end, the trial judge concluded that these
inconsistencies were not meaningful and she accepted the
complainant's evidence.
[4] On this issue, it is appropriate for this court to consider
that the appellant did not testify at trial.
[5] In our view, the verdict is not unreasonable.
- Improper reliance on demeanour
[6] The trial judge considered the age of the complainant and
the effect of the passage of time on her memory. As noted above,
the trial judge made a detailed review of the inconsistencies in
the complainant's evidence and of the details of the disclosures.
The trial judge noted that the complainant was susceptible to
suggestions. However, she also found that the complainant's
evidence was confirmed on several material points.
[7] This ground of appeal has no merit.
- Improper requirement that appellant prove motive to fabricate
[8] The defence raised the issue of motive to fabricate and thus
the trial judge dealt with it. However, the trial judge did not
rely on her findings on this issue to reach her ultimate
decision. She properly focused on all of the evidence to convict
the appellant.
[9] We see no indication that the trial judge reversed the
burden of proof.
- Improper use of prior consistent statement
[10] The strategy of the defence throughout trial was to
highlight the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements.
The prior statements were introduced without objection and
defence counsel cross-examined the complainant on the statements
at length.
[11] We see no indication that the trial judge made improper use
of this evidence in her conclusion to convict the appellant.
- Refusal to grant an adjournment
[12] On this record we see no basis to interfere with the trial
judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to grant an additional
adjournment of the sentencing more than four months after the
appellant was convicted. In addition, counsel for the appellant
did not make clear the purpose for seeking yet another
adjournment except to say that he did not have a transcript of
the proceedings. We note that counsel filed no affidavit
material in support of this ground of appeal.
[13] The appeal is dismissed.
(signed) "C. A. Osborne A.C.J.O."
(signed) "George Finlayson J.A."
(signed) "J. M. Labrosse J.A."