Radbert Hsinyeh Pe

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused slapped the complainant during a domestic dispute.

The accused denied the assault occurred and alternatively argued consent.

The court admitted similar fact evidence of prior domestic violence but found it had minimal probative value.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence and found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the consent defence.

The accused was also found guilty of the two breach charges after conceding the Crown's case.

The Crown brought an application under section 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code seeking an order for a mental assessment to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences that would render him exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1).

The accused faced charges including break and enter, fail to comply with probation orders, resist peace officer, theft, and mischief.

The defence opposed the application.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding insufficient reasonable grounds to believe the accused suffered from a mental disorder or that he did not know his actions were wrong at the time of the offences.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and two counts of breaching a recognizance.

The trial focused on the issue of consent, with conflicting accounts from the complainant and the accused.

The Crown's application to admit similar fact evidence was dismissed, as its probative value was deemed outweighed by its prejudicial effect due to generic similarities and a key factual distinction.

Prior consistent statements by the complainant were also excluded as there was no evidence of recent fabrication.

The court found both parties generally credible, but the complainant's testimony regarding her actions and candor raised questions.

Ultimately, the accused's evidence created a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all charges.