Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Central East - Newmarket 4911-998-10-03191-00
Date: 2012-09-10
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— and —
John Delima
Before: Justice P.J. Wright
Reasons for Judgment released on: September 10, 2012
Counsel:
M. Dionne and G. Sang, for the Crown
C. Galluzo, for the accused John Delima
WRIGHT J.:
Introduction
[1] John Delima was born on the 13th of May 1966. Jill Delima was born on the 9th of December 1969. John and Jill were married to each other on the 12th of June 1999, when John was 33 and Jill was 29.
[2] John and Jill have three children; 10-year old twins, Matthew and Elizabeth, and a seven-year old son, Ryan. At the time that these proceedings began, John and Jill were both self-employed investigators.
[3] This trial proceeded over a number of months, which made it difficult to maintain continuity.
[4] During this period of time I heard evidence, which made it clear that, by January 2010, John and Jill were desperately unhappy in a marriage that had reached the breaking point. There was no longer any love between them; indeed John and Jill did not even like each other.
[5] Jill commenced divorce proceedings. Despite this fact, John and Jill agreed to remain in the matrimonial home with their children while arrangements were made to seek separate accommodations. Money was tight. Tensions were high. Both had difficulty earning money and meeting the obligations of the family.
[6] It must have been, to use the axiom, a "pressure-cooker" environment.
[7] Matters reached a head on the 30th of March 2010, when John and Jill were engaged in a serious altercation which led to Jill making a complaint to the police about John's conduct. As a result of that complaint, a police investigation was conducted following which John Delima was arrested and charged with three counts of assault upon Jill Delima with offence dates of March 30, 2010, December 19, 2007, and April 1 to August 1, 2001.
The Trial
[8] John Delima entered pleas of not guilty to all three counts of assault upon Jill Delima.
[9] The Crown called Jill Delima as a witness. She testified that she had been assaulted by John Delima during each of the time periods set out in the information. The Crown also called Andrew McGillvray, who was Jill Delima's brother, Lisa Barrett, who worked with the York Region Children's Aid Society, and Allison McCauley, who was a police officer with York Regional Police Services, as witnesses.
[10] The Crown also adduced photographs of Jill Delima's face and eyes, taken at the police station on April 1st, 2010, as Exhibits 1 and 2.
[11] The defendant, John Delima, testified. He denied assaulting Jill Delima on any of the three occasions set out in the information. He also contradicted the evidence of Andrew McGillvray, Lisa Barrett and Allison McCauley. He adduced a case conference brief and a Certificate of Completion of an anger management program, Exhibits 3 and 4.
The Issues
[12] The issues presented in this trial were credibility and reliability.
The Law in General
[13] All persons charged with a criminal offence in Canada are presumed by law to be innocent. They are not required to prove their innocence or disprove their guilt.
[14] The presumption of innocence can only be displaced and guilt established by evidence that meets the standard required in a criminal trial of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The quality of such evidence must be convincing, consistent and manifestly reliable.
[15] The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been described as proof to a near certainty. Proof of the probability of guilt does not amount to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[16] The burden of proof rests on the Crown throughout the trial and that burden of proof never shifts to the defendant. These legal concepts have been defined and explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in: R. v. W.(D.) (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lifchus (1997), 118 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Starr (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.).
[17] The standard or rule of reasonable doubt applies to all trial issues, and that includes the central trial issues in this case of credibility and reliability.
[18] In R. v. W.(D.), supra, Mr. Justice Cory directed that trial judges apply a three-part test as a matter of law. Judges are to acquit a defendant if, firstly, the evidence of the defendant is believed or, secondly, if the judge is left in reasonable doubt by the defendant's evidence even if the judge did not believe the evidence or, thirdly, if the judge is left in a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt by the totality of the evidence that he does accept.
[19] Applying the standard or rule of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to issues of credibility and reliability must be undertaken with particular care, keeping in mind at all times the following:
The ultimate burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the offence (charged) rests at all times upon the Crown;
The court must bear in mind that it cannot proceed on the basis that the verdict is controlled solely by the resolution of the credibility contest between the defendant and the complainant or other witnesses. To do so would conflate the presumption of innocence (R. v. Boffo, [1997] O.J. No. 5156 (Ont. C.A.));
The court can, and indeed has a positive duty as a matter of law, to proceed with an assessment of the defendant's evidence in light of the evidence as a whole, which includes, as it does in this case, the testimony of the complainant and the defendant and, in so doing, may compare the evidence of witnesses. Such an assessment must not proceed, however, on the basis of determining which of two competing versions of the events the court prefers and then ground a verdict on the basis of that determination. R. v. Hull, [2006] O.J. No. 311 (Ont. C.A.) provides an instructive summary on this point:
W.(D.) and other authorities prohibit triers of fact from treating the standard of proof as a credibility contest. Put another way, they prohibit a trier of fact from concluding that the standard of proof has been met simply because the trier of fact prefers the evidence of Crown witnesses to that of defence witnesses. However, such authorities do not prohibit a trier of fact from assessing an accused's testimony in light of the whole evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, and in so doing comparing the evidence of the witnesses. On the contrary, triers of fact have a positive duty to carry out such an assessment recognizing that one possible outcome of the assessment is that the trier of fact may be left with a reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the accused.
Evidence of Incident of March 30, 2010 (Count 1)
Evidence of Jill Delima
[20] Jill Delima testified that she was in her bedroom, folding clothes. The defendant, John Delima, entered the bedroom with a cheque that he had received and sat on the bed. There had not been much money for household expenses and the mortgage payment.
[21] Jill asked John if he was going to use the money from the cheque to pay the mortgage on the house. In doing so, she reminded him that she had borrowed money already to pay one of the mortgage payments. Jill testified that after she asked this question, John became verbally abusive and lunged off the bed at her. Afraid, Jill ran from her bedroom into her son's bedroom. John ran after her.
[22] Keeping in mind that these two desperately unhappy people had to make do with what was available, they continued to talk. Jill wanted a commitment from John that the money from the cheque would be used to pay the mortgage. John would not give Jill that commitment. Rather he changed the topic and told her that she could not go shopping with her mother and spend the money. Jill repeatedly asked John for a commitment that the money from the cheque would be used for the mortgage payment. Jill's request to John went unanswered.
[23] Jill left her son's bedroom and re-entered her bedroom to continue folding the clothes. While she was doing this, John re-entered her bedroom. John continued to be verbally abusive towards Jill. He swore at her repeatedly. Jill began to cry. John became more angry. Jill was upset and frightened by John's aggressive behaviour. She threw a small ticket box at John. John lunged at her, grabbed her and began punching her on both sides of the head, at least four times. Jill testified that she clasped her hands around her head and crumpled into a ball on the floor to protect herself from the forceful blows that were being delivered by John. She testified that both sides of her head were numb. She suffered a sore neck and whiplash. She testified that her head was "killing" her. She ran downstairs, pulled out a garbage bag and threw up into the garbage bag. Jill asked John to pack his bags. John left to pick up the children from school.
[24] After John left, Jill took cold compresses and put them on her face to try and dull the red marks and bruises as she did not want her children to see them when they came home from school.
[25] Jill called her brother, Andrew McGillvray, and made arrangements to go to a movie with him. At the movie theatre, Jill told Andrew that John had assaulted her and showed him the marks and bruises on her face.
Evidence of Andrew McGillvray
[26] Andrew McGillvray testified his sister, Jill Delima, had called him and asked to go to a movie. He agreed. He met Jill at the movie theatre shortly after this incident. He described Jill as wearing "Jackie Onassis-style" large black sunglasses. He testified Jill had told him that John had assaulted her by hitting her repeatedly in the face and the head. Jill lifted the sunglasses from her face to reveal fresh bruises on her temple and a bump on her right eye.
[27] Andrew described the bruises and marks on Jill's face that day, and subsequently when he attended at the police station. He described how the injuries changed in their colour from the first appearance of the bruises and marks he saw at the movie theatre on March 30th to the broken blood vessels, the marks above the eyebrow and below the eye, and the yellow colouring which appeared in the bruised areas when seen at the police station on April 1st, as portrayed in Exhibits 1 and 2.
Evidence of Allison McCauley
[28] York Regional Police Officer Allison McCauley attended at the Delima residence on April the 1st, 2010 as part of the police investigation. She met John Delima at the door. She described John as being in a rage, out of control, screaming, kicking the door, and calling her a "fucking slut", a "fucking bitch" and a "fucking cunt". Allison McCauley took careful notes; she recorded specifically her observations of John, his actions and the words he spoke to her.
[29] She also testified that while these court proceedings were ongoing she had a chance encounter in the parking lot with John when he approached her and said, "You better call for back-up, you slut."
Evidence of Lisa Barrett
[30] York Regional Children's Aid Society worker, Lisa Barrett, testified. Her focus was not with respect to criminal investigative matters, but rather with respect to the best interests of the children of this marriage.
[31] She had telephone communication with John Delima. She made notes of the conversation. Her recollection of the conversation, recorded in her notes, was that the defendant, Mr. Delima, had indicated to her that his intentions were to plead guilty to these charges. She was clear in her evidence. She recorded that conversation in her notes.
Evidence of John Delima
[32] John gave a very different view of what occurred. He asserted that when Jill threw the box at him, he grabbed her because he was afraid that she was going to attack him. He held her arms to prevent that from occurring. He was unable to say exactly how the complainant fell to the floor, or how she encountered the marks and bruises on her face and eyes, which are visible in the photographs, Exhibits 1 and 2. He surmised that those injuries must have happened when he was trying to control what he described as Jill's aggressive and assaultive behaviour.
[33] He denied punching Jill, as she claimed, and advanced the proposition that had he done so the injuries to Jill would have been far greater than those she complained of or those shown in the photographs, Exhibits 1 and 2.
[34] John Delima gave no direct evidence contradicting the evidence of Andrew McGillvray.
[35] John Delima denied he told Lisa Barrett that he intended to plead guilty to the charges and that she was either mistaken or lying to say otherwise.
[36] John denied that he called Allison McCauley a "fucking slut" or a "fucking cunt" at the house, but admitted that he called her a "fucking bitch". John denied he was a man out of control or that he was kicking the door as Allison McCauley said. Rather he said he was man in fine control and was not kicking the door.
[37] John denied that he said to Officer McCauley, "You better call for back-up, you slut" in discussions that took place in the parking lot as Officer Allison McCauley had asserted in her evidence.
Assessment of the Evidence of the March 30, 2010 Incident
[38] Jill Delima is an intelligent person. She was an articulate witness. She was unshaken in cross-examination. She gave a detailed history of abuse in a desperately unhappy marriage. Her evidence was cogent, logical, and it made sense. Her evidence was internally consistent and consistent with the confirmatory evidence. It was consistent with her statement to the police and it was consistent with the probability of truth.
[39] She recorded, recalled and related evidence of what occurred during the March 30th incident and the period surrounding this incident. She described the assaults by John upon her. She testified accurately about this incident. She was a good historian.
[40] I conclude that Jill Delima's evidence was credible and reliable. I believe her.
[41] Andrew McGillvray testified. He is an intelligent person. He was an articulate witness and unshaken in cross-examination.
[42] He gave specific details of his observations with Jill when he saw her at the movie theatre and later at the police station. He described with particularity the marks and bruises on Jill's face, eyes and head. He confirmed those observations by the photographs of Jill, Exhibits 1 and 2. He recorded, recalled and related his evidence in an accurate and reliable fashion. He was a good historian.
[43] I conclude Andrew's evidence was credible and reliable and I believe him.
[44] Allison McCauley is the police officer who was investigating these assaults. She is a professional. It was Allison McCauley's job to accurately record her observations in her notebook. She spoke with independent recollection and referred to her notebook regarding specific details.
[45] Her evidence was credible and reliable and I accept it, so far as it relates to all of her observations of the defendant, his actions, conduct and words spoken.
[46] Lisa Barrett was a case worker with York Region Children's Aid Society. Her job was to establish a plan that was in the best interests of the children of this marriage that had collapsed and was troubled by difficulty between Jill and John. She was concerned, understandably, about how this would impact upon two 10-year olds and a seven-year old caught in the grip of animosity between their mother and father.
[47] In her discussion with Mr. Delima she learned that he had been charged with criminal offences. John told her that he intended to plead guilty. She recorded this in her notebook and testified at trial that is exactly what John said he was going to do – "plead guilty to these charges."
[48] Lisa Barrett is a professional. She made notes and she testified from those notes. I accept that she is a credible and reliable witness and I accept her evidence as to the words spoken by Mr. Delima to her.
[49] Although I accept the evidence of Jill Delima, Andrew McGillvray, Allison McCauley and Lisa Barrett, it does not end the matter. The fact that I believe these witnesses does not mean I can rest my verdict on that belief alone.
[50] John Delima testified. He denied the allegations of assault and the evidence supporting it from Jill Delima, Andrew McGillvray, Allison McCauley and Lisa Barrett. He is entitled to an analysis and assessment of his evidence, in the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether or not the Crown has proven his guilt on this charge beyond a reasonable doubt, or expressed otherwise, whether a reasonable doubt exists as to his guilt.
[51] John testified that there was an agreement between he and Jill and that they would separate from each other on the 1st of April 2010. John pointed to the divorce proceedings, the April 1st date and the fact that Jill Delima had spoken to both her doctor and her lawyer as a construct in which he asserted that Jill was trying to expel him from the home. He did not use the word conspiracy, but that is in fact what he was advancing, that all of these forces were working together with Jill's misrepresentation to have him removed from the home.
[52] I have carefully considered the defendant's evidence in every respect. It is inconceivable that all of the professional agencies – the police, Children's Aid Society, doctors and lawyers – acting independently of one another, would have acted in some sort of grand plan to see Mr. Delima expelled from his home and made the victim of an assault charge, quarterbacked by his angry, bitter, animated wife.
[53] His evidence with respect to what occurred in the bedroom and his assault on Jill Delima is simply not plausible. It does not make sense. I reject his assertion that he was acting in some justified fashion, be it self-defense or otherwise, when he grabbed his wife after she had thrown a small ticket box at him. Nothing arises from his evidence that assists the court in understanding how Jill was hit and knocked to the floor and ended up with the injuries on her face. He is not required to provide an explanation, but no explanation arises from his evidence.
[54] His concluding comments on this incident were that had he hit her in the fashion described he would have done far more injury to her head and face than that of which Jill spoke and is demonstrated in Exhibits 1 and 2.
[55] In short, I conclude the defendant's explanation with respect to what occurred in the bedroom is no explanation at all and I reject it, preferring instead the evidence of Jill Delima.
[56] Allison Macauley gave her evidence with respect to her contact with Mr. Delima. Mr. Delima denied everything that Allison McCauley said, accepting only an admission that he called Allison McCauley a "fucking bitch".
[57] I reject the defendant's assertion that he was in control. I find he was out of control, as Allison McCauley said. I reject his evidence that he was not in a rage, kicking the door. I accept Allison McCauley noted evidence, as a police officer, that the defendant was in a rage and was kicking the door. I reject the defendant's denial that he called Allison McCauley a "fucking slut" and a "fucking cunt". Allison McCauley recalled those words and they were noted in her police notebook. I reject the defendant's assertion that there was no confrontation in the parking lot with Allison McCauley. I accept the evidence of Allison McCauley that there was such a confrontation and that the defendant told her, "You better call for back-up, you slut."
[58] Lisa Barrett was concerned about the best interests of the children. Her job was to try to establish a plan that would assist the family and, more importantly, the three children. In her discussions with Mr. Delima, he told her he had been charged with criminal offences of assaulting wife and he intended to plead guilty to these charges.
[59] Lisa Barrett is a professional. She made these notes in her book. I reject the defendant's evidence that he made no such comment and that Lisa Barrett was either mistaken or lying.
[60] With respect therefore to count 1, the assault of March 30th, 2010, I accept the complainant's evidence in its entirety, along with the evidence of Andrew McGillvray, Allison McCauley and Lisa Barrett. I reject the defendant's evidence in its entirety, and in particular where it is in conflict with the evidence of Jill Delima, Andrew McGillvray, Allison McCauley and Lisa Barrett. The defendant's evidence does not leave me in any reasonable doubt, nor does any reasonable doubt rise in consideration of the totality of the evidence with respect to this charge. Accordingly, I find the defendant guilty on count 1.
The Evidence of the Incident of December 19, 2007 (Count 2)
[61] John and Jill Delima were private investigators. They were business people. Not uncommon in the business community is the proposition that one rewards their clients or customers with gifts and considerations of sorts – ball tickets, party tickets, party favours and, in this case, Christmas baskets, which were being delivered on December 19th, 2007. The plan was that John Delima was to drive and Jill Delima was to deliver the Christmas baskets to their respective clients. Their seven-year-old son, Ryan, was in the backseat.
Evidence of Jill Delima
[62] Jill testified that, in the course of these deliveries, John asked her to take money from the corporate account to make various payments, including a mortgage payment. They had argued about this on prior occasions. For the first time, on a significant matter, she contradicted her husband and said no. She was not going to take corporate money to pay personal bills anymore.
[63] Jill testified that her response sent John into a rage. John grabbed Jill and smashed her head into the door and window. She said John used so much force that the right side of her face went numb and it remained numb intermittently for a period of some three months following this assault. Jill testified that John also grabbed her by the hair and pushed her even more forcefully into the door, repeatedly, yelling out, "Oh, yeah, Ms. President", this in reference to the fact that Jill was the president of the company. Jill testified that she tried to defend herself by trying to hit John, but her efforts failed. Jill's attempt to defend herself only further enraged John, who smashed Jill's head even harder against the door many more times.
[64] Jill testified that while in the car John had composed himself and apologized for his behaviour. He said he was sorry and would get counselling. John and Jill continued with the distribution of the Christmas baskets, but Jill was unable to make the actual physical delivery since she had been beaten up and her face was marked with injury. She was in no position to deliver Christmas baskets. Jill told John that he would have to make the deliveries and he agreed that he would.
Evidence of John Delima
[65] In his testimony, John gave a very different account of the altercation that took place in the car. He agreed that there was a quarrel between Jill and himself with respect to money, but testified that as a result of the quarrel it was Jill who hit him and that he was simply attempting to defend himself while driving the motor vehicle.
[66] During the course of cross-examination John admitted that at this particular time in their marriage he was a bit "snappy", fuelled largely through financial difficulties and arguments over those difficulties between the two of them. During the trial he denied that he had become "snappy", but ultimately under more pressing examination he admitted he had become more "snappy" toward Jill, although he was careful to point out he was not the one who initiated the physical confrontation that took place in the car, rather it was Jill who initiated it by striking him.
[67] He did not dispute that the original plan for the delivery of the Christmas baskets involved Jill making the deliveries. As well, John did not dispute that as a result of the physical altercation with Jill he assumed the role of the delivery person. He indicated that he was sorry for what had occurred in the car and that he would seek counselling for his anger.
Assessment of the Evidence of the December 19, 2007 Incident
[68] Jill Delima is an intelligent person. She was an articulate witness and unshaken in cross-examination. She gave very specific details of this incident in the context of a desperately unhappy and financially-strapped marriage. Her evidence was internally consistent. It was consistent with her statement to the police and with the probability of truth. She recorded, recalled and related the evidence of this incident accurately and reliably. She was a good historian. I find Jill Delima's evidence with respect to this incident to be credible and reliable.
[69] She was very specific about the financial difficulty that triggered John's explosive behaviour in the car. Injured and marked in the face, she was no longer able to make the delivery of the Christmas baskets. John had to do this. She recalled John apologizing to her for his behaviour and his promise to take counselling to assist him. She suffered injuries as a result of this assault, which included numbness to the face lasting intermittently for approximately three months. It was clear that the force used by the defendant was excessive.
[70] While John gave evidence that was somewhat consistent with that given by Jill, he denied initiating physical contact with Jill. I reject the defendant's evidence in which he suggests justification or self-defence for his conduct. It does not make sense. Why would he have to undertake delivery of the Christmas baskets if Jill was not significantly injured in the fashion she described? Why would he apologize if he had done nothing wrong? Why would he indicate he would seek counselling to deal with his anger? I infer that John knew perfectly well that he had injured Jill in precisely the fashion that she had described and that is the reason he had to deliver the Christmas baskets, that is the reason he apologized to Jill and that is the reason he told Jill he would seek counselling to deal with his anger.
[71] John's evidence was inconsistent – indeed, during the course of cross-examination he admitted, then denied, then admitted again that he was "snappy" toward Jill. John's evidence is internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with the probability of truth. I do not believe the defendant and I reject his evidence where it is in conflict with that of Jill's evidence.
[72] John Delima's evidence does not leave me in any reasonable doubt with respect to his guilt, nor does any reasonable doubt with respect to his guilt arise on consideration of the totality of the evidence. Mr. Delima will be found guilty of count 2.
Evidence of the Incident Between April 1 and August 1, 2001 (Count 3)
[73] Count three arches across a long time span, from 2010 all the way back to 2001 – almost ten years, at a very different point in time and place and circumstance when this couple was much younger, before they had children, before the difficulties that infected their marriage had caused them to become so desperately unhappy with each other.
Evidence of Jill Delima
[74] In the spring of 2001, Jill Delima was six months pregnant. She testified about an incident that occurred in her living room at 15 Inverlochy, following an argument she had with her husband, John.
[75] Jill testified that John punched her so hard in her arm that she found the pain to be almost unbearable. She could not believe that John had punched her so hard. When Jill testified about this incident, her demeanour clearly telegraphed a sharp and vivid memory of that incident and the terrible pain that she sustained. It was as real when she gave her testimony as the day that it happened. She said that she told John that she could not believe he had hit her so hard, as his wife and a woman six months pregnant with their twins. She testified that John said that he was sorry and promised that it would never happen again. As a young wife and mother-to-be in a new marriage, of only two years, she said that she was prepared to accept that from John. She said that she forgave her husband based on his promise this would never happen again. That was the consideration for the forgiveness.
Evidence of John Delima
[76] John Delima testified that the event described by Jill never occurred and denied any wrongdoing of the fashion suggested by Jill in her evidence. In short, John Delima asserted that Jill was lying.
Assessment of the Evidence of the Incident Between April 1 and August 1, 2001 (Count 3)
[77] The incident described by Jill Delima occurred a number of years ago. No report was made, no photographs taken and no witnesses consulted. I must take particular care in assessing the evidence.
[78] While this incident occurred in 2001, Jill's memory and recollection of it, as reflected in her testimony, was remarkably good.
[79] Jill presented as an intelligent, caring thoughtful witness. Her evidence was unshaken in cross-examination. She gave very specific details about this incident and, while she forgave John for what he had done based upon his promise it would never happen again, she has not forgotten it. She recorded, recalled and related the evidence of this incident with accuracy. She was a good historian and I believe her.
[80] I find Jill's evidence to be credible and reliable.
[81] John Delima denied that this incident occurred. He denies that he told Jill he was sorry and promised her this would never happen again. He denied that Jill forgave him for his conduct based on the consideration of his promise. He testified that Jill was lying about this incident.
[82] I am mindful of the appellate authority which instructs trial courts not to conflate findings of credibility with the required standard in a criminal trial of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This presents a particularly challenging task to trial courts dealing with a "he said – she said" scenario, particularly where the defendant asserts a total denial to the incident in question.
[83] I have carefully considered the evidence. I accept the evidence of Jill Delima with respect to John's assault upon her. I reject the evidence of the defendant in its entirety.
[84] In the circumstances here, I conclude that no reasonable doubt exists with respect to the guilt of the defendant in relation to this charge based upon his evidence and none arises upon the consideration of the totality of the evidence. The defendant will be found guilty of count 3.
Incidents of 2002/2004
[85] In her evidence Jill talked about incidents that occurred in May/June of 2002, when the twins were in the crib. There was an argument between John and Jill. She said that John punched her and then he apologized to her and promised it wouldn't happen again. Jill had a sore arm and a bruise as a result of John punching her.
[86] Jill talked of another incident in 2004 when she was pregnant with Ryan. She said that John pushed her down the stairs, but again apologized to her and promised it would not happen again.
[87] These incidents are not matters that are before the court as charges, but evidence of these events was heard during the trial. The appellate authority permits this evidence to be received by a trial court to place the nature of the relationship between the parties in context. I am entitled to do so here.
[88] I make these remarks to assure both Jill and John that the incidents of May/June 2002 and 2004 are not matters that have in any way determined or affected my judgment in this case. I have decided this case on the evidence I have heard about the incidents set out in the information.
Released: September 10, 2012
Signed: Justice P.J. Wright