citation: "R. v. Neville, 2021 ONCJ 370" parties: "Her Majesty the Queen v. Brian Neville" party_moving: "Her Majesty the Queen" party_responding: "Brian Neville" court: "Ontario Court of Justice" court_abbreviation: "ONCJ" jurisdiction: "Ontario" case_type: "trial" date_judgement: "2021-07-12" date_heard: ["2021-06-01", "2021-06-02", "2021-06-09"] applicant:
- "Her Majesty the Queen" applicant_counsel:
- "R. Griffin" respondent:
- "Brian Neville" respondent_counsel:
- "D. Hodson" judge:
- "S. W. Konyer"
summary: >
The defendant, Brian Neville, was charged with sexually assaulting and touching for a sexual purpose a five-year-old complainant. The Crown proceeded summarily, and the trial was held over three days. The complainant testified via a video-recorded statement, which she adopted. The defence argued that identification was not proven and that reasonable doubt existed regarding the alleged acts. The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and other witnesses, finding the complainant's testimony compelling, credible, and reliable despite incremental disclosure. The defendant's denial was disbelieved due to contradictions with the complainant's evidence and his illogical conduct. The court found that the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both charges.
interesting_citations_summary: >
This decision applies established principles for assessing the credibility and reliability of child witnesses, citing R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. B.(G.) to underscore that children may perceive and recount events differently from adults, and that exactitude in detail is not a prerequisite for reliability. It also reiterates the principle from R. v. J.J.R.D. that even if an accused's denial is disbelieved, the Crown must still prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence accepted by the court. The case highlights the importance of corroborating details from other witnesses in bolstering a child's account and the court's approach to assessing an accused's contradictory testimony.
final_judgement: "Guilty on both charges."
winning_degree_applicant: 1
winning_degree_respondent: 5
judge_bias_applicant: 0
judge_bias_respondent: 0
year: 2021
decision_number: 370
file_number: "Lindsay 20-0598"
source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2021/2021oncj370/2021oncj370.html"
cited_cases:
legislation:
- title: "Criminal Code" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/" case_law:
- title: "R. v. W.(R)., 1992 SCC 56, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii56/1992canlii56.html"
- title: "R. v. B.(G.), 1990 SCC 7308, [1990] S.C.J. No 58" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii7308/1990canlii7308.html"
- title: "R. v. J.J.R.D., 2006 ONCA 40088, [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (C.A.)" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii40088/2006canlii40088.html" keywords:
- sexual assault
- child witness
- credibility
- reliability
- reasonable doubt
- Criminal Code
- identification areas_of_law:
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. —(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
( a ) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
( b ) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs ( a )(i) to (iii).
(2) Mandatory order on application. — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)( a ) or ( b ), the presiding judge or justice shall
( a ) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
( b ) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 Offence. —(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2021·07·12
COURT FILE No.: Lindsay 20-0598
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
BRIAN NEVILLE
Before Justice S. W. Konyer
Heard on June 1, 2 and 9, 2021
Reasons for Judgment released on July 12, 2021
Ms. R. Griffin .......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Mr. D. Hodson ........................................................... counsel for the defendant Brian Neville
# Konyer J.:
[1] Brian Neville is charged with sexually assaulting V.H. between May 3 and June 5, 2020. He is also charged with touching her for a sexual purpose, which would be an offence due to her age. Both allegations arise out of a single incident. The Crown elected to proceed summarily on these charges, and Mr. Neville was tried before me over the course of 3 days in June, 2021. V.H. was five years old at the time of the alleged offences, and six years old when she testified at trial.
[2] V.H. testified with the usual protections in place for a witness of her age. She has no present recollection of the incident, but adopted the contents of a video-recorded statement she gave to the police on June 7, 2020. In that statement, which I shall refer to in greater detail later, she alleges that Mr. Neville touched her in the genital area with his hands and mouth.
[3] I also heard testimony from V.H.’s grandmother and aunt, who both said that V.H. disclosed the allegation to them on June 5, 2020. K.G., a friend of V.H.’s mother who was babysitting the child at the time of the alleged offence also testified, as did the police officers involved in taking the statement from V.H. and in the arrest of Mr. Neville.
[4] Mr. Neville testified in his own defence and categorically denied touching V.H. in a sexual manner. The defence argued that V.H. never identified Mr. Neville as the person who touched her, and that the Crown has therefore failed to prove identification. In the alternative, if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Neville is the person identified by V.H., the defence argues that the evidence as a whole should leave me with a reasonable doubt that the acts of sexual touching occurred. There is no dispute that if I find the touching did occur, and that Mr. Neville is the person who touched V.H., then he must be found guilty on both counts. In that event, it is conceded that all of the elements of the offences of sexual touching and sexual assault will have been proven.
[5] Like any person charged with a criminal offence, Mr. Neville is presumed innocent. He can only be found guilty if the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one that is derived from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is not a speculative or fanciful doubt. While the Crown is not required to prove his guilt to an absolute certainty, which is an impossible standard, proof of likely or probable guilt is not enough. At the end of the day, after considering all of the evidence, the question I must answer is whether or not I am sure that Mr. Neville touched V.H. in a sexual manner. If I am sure, I must find him guilty. If I am not sure, he must be found not guilty. If I am uncertain as to where the truth of the matter lies, it follows that I cannot be sure of Mr. Neville’s guilt and I must find him not guilty.
[6] Mr. Neville testified and denied touching V.H. in a sexual manner. Clearly, if I believe his testimony then I must find him not guilty. Furthermore, even if I do not believe his testimony but it leaves me with a reasonable doubt when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, I must find him not guilty. Further, even if his testimony does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must go on to consider whether I am satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence which I do accept. I must consider all of the evidence in this case when making these determinations.
[7] It follows that the determination of whether the Crown has proven Mr. Neville’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not a simple credibility contest between his testimony and the evidence of V.H., including the video-recorded statement of her police interview. The question is not which version of events I prefer or find more believable. The only question is whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Neville touched V.H. in a sexual manner after considering all of the evidence. In order to decide this question, I will need to assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses who testified at Mr. Neville’s trial.
[8] In order to decide the case, I will first review the relevant evidence. Then I will make assessments of credibility and reliability, which will allow me to make findings of fact. The findings of fact will determine whether the Crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that V.H. was touched in a sexual manner and if so, whether it was Mr. Neville who touched her.
## Summary of the relevant evidence
[9] S.F. is V.H.’s paternal grandmother. Her son is separated from V.H.’s mother, and he lived with her during the spring of 2020. Custody of V.H. was shared between her son and V.H.’s mother. She testified that on June 5, 2020, V.H. returned from a stay with her mother. Shortly after returning, V.H. asked Ms. F. for help undoing the buttons on the back of a jumper she was wearing so that she could use the washroom. Ms. F. had not seen the jumper before. She told V.H. that it was a cute outfit, and asked her where it was from. V.H. told her that Brian had given it to her. Ms. F. did not know who Brian was, and simply remarked “that’s nice.”
[10] V.H. then asked her grandmother “can I tell you something” and whispered to her that while she had been sleeping on K.G.’s couch she was woken up by the feel of whiskers and found that Brian was “licking her bum”. Ms. F. understood K.G. to be a friend of V.H.’s mother who sometimes babysat V.H. when the mother had custody of her. She asked V.H. if she had told her mother. V.H. replied that she had not because she was afraid. Ms. F. then had a brief conversation with V.H. about inappropriate touching. She said that V.H. “seemed fine” when she disclosed this information.
[11] According to Ms. F., she then brought V.H. to her daughter-in-law, J.M., who lived in the same residence, and asked V.H. to repeat her statement. Ms. F. later shared this information with V.H.’s father and his brother (Ms. J.M.’s spouse). The following day, Ms. F. and V.H.’s father brought her to the police station where she was interviewed by a police officer.
[12] J.M. also testified. She confirmed that on June 5, 2020, she returned home from work and was met by Ms. F. and V.H. Ms. F. was visibly upset and asked V.H. to “tell Auntie J.M. what you just told me”. V.H. said she was scared, so Ms. J.M. took her on her knee and reassured her. V.H. then told her that while she was sleeping on the couch, she woke up to find that Brian “had his tongue in her butt”. Ms. J.M. asked her where this had happened and V.H. said it occurred at K.G.’s house. Ms. J.M. did not know who either K.G. or Brian were. She asked V.H. if she had told either K.G. or her mom what had happened, and received a negative response. She asked V.H. if anything else had happened and received a negative response. She did not ask for further details from V.H. as she “did not want to push her”. She too said that V.H.’s demeanour when disclosing this information was unremarkable.
[13] K.G. testified for the Crown. She was a friend of V.H.’s mother, and lived two doors down from her in the spring of 2020. During periods when V.H.’s mother had the care of V.H. and her infant brother, Ms. K.G. frequently babysat the children in her home. Occasionally, the children would stay overnight. Ms. K.G. lived with her fiancée D., who is Mr. Neville’s brother. She also provided care for a 30 year old woman with special needs named Julie, who also lived in Ms. K.G.’s home. She said there were other adults who occasionally spent the night, including her sister and Mr. Neville. Her home had 2 bedrooms upstairs, one of which was used by her and D., and the other belonged to Julie. When V.H. and her brother would stay over, the baby would sleep in a crib in Ms. K.G.’s room, while V.H. would sleep either in their room or on a couch downstairs. She said that Mr. Neville stayed overnight regularly, and would have slept at her house two or three times in the month prior to June 7, 2020 when she was interviewed by the police. She recalled that there were one or two occasions during this time when both V.H. and Mr. Neville stayed overnight. She said that V.H. stayed on the couch on these occasions while Mr. Neville also slept downstairs on a mattress on the floor.
[14] Ms. K.G. also said that V.H. knew Mr. Neville well and appeared to “adore him”. She recalled that Mr. Neville had given V.H. gifts on or around her birthday ([…]), which included clothing. She said that Mr. Neville sometimes grew facial hair, but that she thought he was clean-shaven during the period of time in question.
[15] V.H., who is now 6 years old, also testified. During her testimony, she watched a video-recorded interview that had been conducted with her by D.C. Patricia Staples on June 6, 2020. She identified herself on the video but did not have a present recollection of being interviewed. She did, however, say that she told the officer the truth and that the events she described in the interview happened. The parties agreed that the statement had been made within a reasonable period of time after the events, and that V.H. had adopted it during her testimony. Accordingly, I ruled that the statement was admissible pursuant to s.715.1 of the Criminal Code.
[16] In her statement, V.H. said that her mother often left her at “K.G.’s house” and that she frequently stayed overnight. She described K.G. as the godmother of her baby brother, and said that K.G. lived with her boyfriend D.. She said that other people also came to K.G.’s house, including Brian, who she described as D.’s brother. She said that Brian lived at a different house than K.G., but that she saw him there frequently. She said that she liked Brian, and described him as “nice”. V.H. was asked about what she had told her grandmother concerning Brian, and said that she was “scared telling it” because “I don’t want them to hear it”, while gesturing at the microphone which she had been told was recording her.
[17] She was encouraged by the officer to whisper what had happened between herself and Brian to her stuffed animal, and she said that “he put his tongue in my butt”. She said this happened at K.G.’s house and that “I was sleeping on the bed couch”. Although she was uncertain when it occurred, she believed it was when she was 5 years old. V.H. turned 5 on […], 2020. V.H. said that Brian only touched her in this manner on one occasion. It happened at night while she was sleeping on the living room couch. She said that Brian “shutted the TV off ‘cause I wasn’t falling asleep” and that he was sleeping on a mattress on the floor of the living room. She said that she was asleep on the couch, which was pulled out into a bed, and that she was awoken by the feel of Brian’s whiskers. She described his whiskers as short, black and pointy, but said his hair was brown.
[18] When asked by D.C. Staples for more details about the touching, V.H. said “first, he putted his finger in there and then his tongue”. She said this hurt, but she did not say anything to Brian “because I didn’t want to get in trouble by him”. She said that he kept looking at her so she closed her eyes. After it was over, he returned to the mattress. V.H. said that she did not tell anyone what had happened other than her grandmother and Aunt J.M..
[19] In cross-examination, V.H. agreed that she no present memory of being touched by Brian and said “I’m not that good at remembering.” However, she said no one told her what to tell the police, and that she understood the questions she was being asked by the officer during her interview.
[20] A photograph of Mr. Neville was taken by the police on June 7, 2020, when he was arrested and charged, and was filed as Exhibit 2 at trial. The photo shows that Mr. Neville had brown hair and medium length black facial hair.
[21] Mr. Neville testified at trial. He denied touching V.H.’s bum or genitals with his hand, mouth or tongue. He did agree that he stayed overnight at the house of K.G. and his brother D. on one occasion when V.H. also spent the night. He agreed that he slept on the floor of the living room next to the pullout couch where V.H. slept. He agreed that the other adults and V.H.’s baby brother were sleeping in the upstairs bedrooms while he and V.H. stayed up watching TV on the couch, which was pulled out into a bed. Eventually he turned off the TV so that V.H. could go to sleep.
[22] Mr. Neville explained that he had known V.H. since she was 2 years old and that he had always gotten along with her. He had never been responsible for disciplining her and knew of no reason why V.H. would be upset with him. He liked V.H. and had bought her gifts for her 5th birthday, including clothing.
[23] On the date that he and V.H. both stayed overnight, he said that he had been invited over by his brother D.. They lived about a ten minute drive from one another, and D. had picked him up that day. He said that D. wanted him to stay overnight so they could hang out, but agreed that by the end of the night he was alone with V.H. In cross-examination, Mr Neville agreed with the suggestion that serious concerns had been raised within his family a couple of months earlier after he had spent the night alone in a room with young female cousins. He agreed that those concerns would have been fresh in his mind at the time he decided to spend the night alone in a room sleeping next to V.H. When asked if he could explain why he would do this, he said “I don’t know.”
## Assessment of credibility and reliability
[24] It is important to bear and mind that credibility and reliability, while related, are distinct concepts. Credibility refers to the truthfulness of a witness’ testimony, while reliability is concerned with the accuracy of the testimony. An honest witness may still be unreliable. Where a witness is found to lack credibility, corroborating evidence may still permit me to rely on some or all of their testimony. I am entitled to accept some, none or all of the testimony of any witness, and the credibility and reliability of the testimony of each witness needs to be considered in the context of all of the evidence.
[25] Assessing the credibility and reliability of a child witness requires special considerations. Details like dates and times that appear important to adults may be unimportant to a child. As the Supreme Court recognized in R. v. W.(R)., 1992 SCC 56, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, at para. 133, “children may experience the world differently from adults”, and it would be an error to impose the same exacting standards to an assessment of the evidence of a young child as to an adult. As Wilson J put it R. v. B.(G.), 1990 SCC 7308, [1990] S.C.J. No 58, at para 48, “[w]hile children may not be able to recount precise details and communicate the when and where of an event with exactitude, this does not mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it.”
[26] V.H. impressed me as a credible witness overall. The defence questioned her credibility due to the fact that in her initial disclosure to her grandmother and aunt, V.H. only mentioned Mr. Neville touching her with his tongue, while she told D.C. Staples that he touched her with both his hand and tongue. According to the defence, this is a material inconsistency which undermines the credibility of her evidence. I disagree. It is clear to me that both the grandmother and aunt deliberately avoided probing V.H. for further details beyond what she volunteered, while the officer specifically asked V.H. whether any other sexual touching took place. The fact that a 5 year old child made incremental disclosure by providing additional details when asked does not, in my view, detract from the credibility of her account.
[27] Further, her account of events flowed naturally. She made the initial disclosure to a trusted person when asked about the new outfit she was wearing and who had given it to her. When questioned by the police, she was clear in her description of the acts and the identity of the person who had touched her. Her account of events is internally consistent. She corrected the officer on some details, and fleshed out other details that were unknown to the officer in order to provide a full account of events. There is nothing about the contents of her statement or the manner in which she provided it to D.C. Staples that leads me to question her honesty. I appreciate that is challenging to cross-examine a witness who has no present recollection of events, but at the end of the day I have no real concerns about the credibility of V.H. as a witness.
[28] To be clear, I place no weight on the fact that V.H. repeated her claims of sexual touching by Mr. Neville to her grandmother, aunt and the police. The repetition of these claims do not make them more credible. The only use I do make of this evidence is in order to understand the unfolding of events and how V.H. came to make the video-recorded statement which is now in evidence at trial.
[29] I also find her testimony to be reliable. She described the location of the home where she slept overnight, the people who were present in the home, the layout of the home’s interior, and the sleeping arrangements. She also described her relationship with Mr. Neville, the fact that she liked him, and the gifts he had given her around the same time. She also said that he had facial hair at the time she says he touched her genital area using his mouth. The accuracy of each of these details were confirmed by other witnesses, including Mr. Neville himself. To borrow the language of Wilson J. in B.(G.), supra, I have no concern that V.H. misconceived what happened to her, or who did it.
[30] The credibility and reliability of V.H.’s grandmother and aunt were not challenged, and I have no difficulty in accepting their testimony for the limited purpose of understanding the narrative behind V.H.’s disclosure. Similarly, the testimony of Ms. K.G., the babysitter, was also largely unchallenged. Her evidence was straightforward and logical, and I accept that her testimony was truthful and reliable.
[31] Mr. Neville, on the other hand, was an unimpressive witness. I appreciate that since his testimony was a straight denial that any act of sexual touching occurred, it will necessarily be lacking in detail. The details he did provide, however, corroborated the evidence of V.H. and other Crown witnesses in all respects but for the acts of sexual touching. This was the only material point of disagreement between his testimony and the evidence of V.H. Since I have found V.H. to be a credible and reliable witness on this point, it follows that Mr. Neville’s contradictory testimony is less credible and less reliable. Even where the exculpatory evidence of an accused person does not suffer from any fatal flaw, it is possible that the evidence may not leave a trial judge with a reasonable doubt where that testimony conflicts with credible evidence which the judge does accept beyond reasonable doubt: see R. v. J.J.R.D., 2006 ONCA 40088, [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (C.A.), at para. 53.
[32] Mr. Neville also acknowledged that he had been recently warned that it was inappropriate for him to spend the night alone with young children, yet he could offer no explanation for not heeding this warning when he spent the night alone in Ms. K.G.’s living room with a 5 year old child. There was no good reason for him to spend the night since his brother, who had apparently wanted him to stay over and hang out, had gone to bed. Mr. Neville knew there was no place for him to sleep other than on the living room floor. Neither he nor his brother were intoxicated, and he lived only a short drive away. It simply makes no sense that he would spend the night in those circumstances, knowing that by doing so he was engaging in the same sort of risky behaviour that had recently led to conflict within his family. His conduct in doing so was illogical, though I also appreciate that human behaviour is not governed strictly by logic. While this flaw is his evidence is not, standing alone, fatal to his credibility, his inability to offer any sensible explanation for this behaviour is troubling. The nonsensical nature of his evidence on this point does tend to detract from his credibility as a witness.
## Conclusions
[33] After considering Mr. Neville’s testimony in the context of all of the evidence, I find that I do not believe his denial. I make this finding based partially on his inability to offer any sensible explanation for spending the night in proximity to V.H., but more importantly on the fact that his testimony is contradicted the evidence of V.H. herself.
[34] Further, his denial does not leave me with a reasonable doubt that the sexual touching occurred when considered in light of all of the evidence. Mr. Neville had the opportunity to sexually touch V.H. in the precise manner she described. He had whiskers on his face at the time. He was alone with her in the living room of Ms. K.G.’s home late at night while everyone else was asleep. He knew better than to spend the night in such close proximity to a child, had no good reason for doing so, and could provide no sensible explanation for his conduct. V.H.’s description of the events that occurred was detailed and compelling, and her disclosure was made using the innocent language of a child in a simple and factual manner. I believe her, and Mr. Neville’s denial does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.
[35] The fact that I do not believe Mr. Neville’s denial, and the fact that his testimony does not leave me with a reasonable doubt is not the end of the matter. The only issue is whether the Crown has proven Mr. Neville’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt can remain even if I disbelieve Mr. Neville and his testimony does not itself leave me with a reasonable doubt. I am required to consider whether the Crown has proven the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence which I do accept.
[36] For the reasons I have already identified, I find V.H. was a compelling, credible and reliable witness. She disclosed allegations of sexual touching by someone she liked, and it clearly made her uncomfortable to tell D.C. Staples, a stranger, what had happened to her. I know from the whole of the evidence that all of the events she described leading up to the sexual touching occurred as she described. Given her very young age, I am not troubled whatsoever with her lack of specificity on the date or time of the incident. She knew the person who touched her, named him, described the setting in detail, and described the feel of his whiskers on her skin. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the acts of sexual touching described by V.H. did occur.
[37] The defence argued that the identity of Mr. Neville as the person who touched V.H. has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt even if I find that the touching occurred. It is true that V.H. was never asked to identify Mr. Neville in the courtroom, and she was never shown the photo taken of Mr. Neville by the police. In her recorded statement, she identified the perpetrator simply as “Brian”, which is Mr. Neville’s first name. The defence says that the evidence shows that people were coming and going from Ms. K.G.’s home and that I cannot be sure that the Brian referred to by V.H. is Mr. Neville. I disagree. The evidence is not that there were many people coming and going. V.H., Ms. K.G. and Mr. Neville himself were all consistent on the number of people – 5 plus the baby – who were present in the home. V.H. identified “Brian” as the brother of Ms. K.G.’s partner, which was confirmed by both Ms. K.G. and Mr. Neville. Finally, Mr. Neville himself agreed that he was the only person present in the living room with V.H. at the material time. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Neville is the person who touched V.H. in the manner she described.
[38] Since I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual touching did occur, and that Mr. Neville was the person who touched V.H., I find him guilty of both charges.
Released: July 12, 2021
Signed: “Justice S. W. Konyer”