Richard Shadley

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to inquire into a three-year-old child's capacity to testify before admitting the mother's hearsay evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Assuming without deciding that the trial judge erred, the Court held that the evidence was such that it was a proper case to apply the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder.

He alleged serious misconduct by the Crown and police, including failing to disclose that a Crown witness perjured himself regarding promises of a pardon, and a police officer recording testimony to give to the witness despite an exclusion order.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the appellant to complete his evidence on these issues and in applying the curative proviso.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.