Peter E. Ralph

The Crown appealed from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal's decision setting aside the accused's convictions for incest and sexual assault and ordering a new trial.

The accused had sought to adduce fresh affidavit evidence on appeal alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that defence counsel's conduct did not result in omissions and decisions which, taken together, undermined the reliability of the convictions such that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The convictions were restored and the Sex Offender Information Registration order was modified from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown appealed from the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador's decision setting aside a jury conviction for sexual assault and entering an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal had concluded the verdict was unreasonable, applying a test of whether an experienced trial judge could have provided adequate reasons for conviction.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal applied the wrong legal test and failed to give sufficient deference to the jury's assessment of witness credibility.

The proper test requires asking whether the verdict is supportable on any reasonable view of the evidence, not whether an imaginary trial judge could articulate reasons for conviction.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.