COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. SAMUEL SINGH (Appellant)
BEFORE: DOHERTY, SIMMONS and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Gregory Lafontaine, for the appellant
Karey Katzsch, for the respondent
HEARD: August 22, 2002
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice P.R. German, sitting with a jury, on March 26, 2001 and the sentence imposed on May 14, 2001.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1[1] The appellant advanced only one of the arguments set out in his factum. He submits that the trial judge failed to set out the theory of the defence and failed to relate the evidence to that theory.
2[2] This was a short, straightforward, single-issue trial. The evidence lasted less than two days. The complainant testified that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant several years earlier. The appellant did not testify, but adduced evidence that the complainant had a reason, that arose many years after the alleged event, to make a false accusation against him. The defence also led evidence from the appellant’s wife to support the position that at least one of the alleged assaults could not possibly have occurred.
3[3] The trial judge’s description of the defence position was cryptic but in the circumstances adequate. She referred to aspects of the evidence relied on by the defence (e.g. inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence). Although she did not outline that evidence in this part of her instruction, she did review the evidence elsewhere in her brief charge (20 pages). We are satisfied that the review of the evidence was adequate and alerted the jury to the parts of the evidence that the defence maintained supported its position.
1[4] The conviction appeal is dismissed.
2[5] Counsel did not press the sentence appeal. The sentence, three years, was appropriate given that several acts of sexual intercourse with a 12-18 year-old girl were proved against the appellant. The sentence appeal is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”