ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 212/12
DATE: 2014-09-26

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

H.R.

Monica MacKenzie, for the Crown

Stephen Bernstein, for Mr. H.R.

HEARD: September 23 & 24, 2014

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION NOTICE

By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.

RULING RE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS

gRAY j.

[1] The issue before me is the admissibility of certain statements made by Mr. H.R. to his former wife and to his pastor. The issue is whether they were “persons in authority” when the statements were made. If they were, the onus is on the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statements were made voluntarily. If they were not, the statements are admissible without the Crown having to prove voluntariness.

[2] It was agreed that the evidentiary issues were as follows:

a) Mr. H.R. bore the evidential onus, which is not a high one, of showing that there is an evidential basis to the claim that the receiver of the statement made by the accused is a person in authority;

b) if the accused satisfies the evidential burden, the onus shifts to the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the receiver of the statement is not a person in authority;

c) if this burden cannot be discharged, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily.

[3] Mr. H.R. gave evidence first, the Crown followed, and Mr. H.R.’s counsel called brief reply evidence.

[4] Mr. H.R. married Y.H. in June, 2006. They lived together until August, 2011, when the incidents that give rise to the charges occurred.

[5] Both Mr. H.R. and Ms. Y.H. testified that their marriage was a good one.

[6] Ms. Y.H. has two children of her own. Mr. H.R. is not their father. One child, the complainant in this matter, is J.Y.. She is now 18 years old. Ms. Y.H. also has a son, H..

[7] Mr. H.R. and Ms. Y.H., and indeed the entire family, are adherents of a church called the L[…] Church, located in Mississauga. Pastor L.M. is the founder and spiritual leader of the church. Ms. Y.H. and her family had been members of the church before Mr. H.R. became a member in 2004.

[8] On August 4, 2011, Mr. H.R. was playing a card game with Ms. Y.H. and her son H.. J.Y. was late getting home, and she arrived at about 10:30 p.m.

[9] An argument developed between Ms. Y.H. and J.Y.. J.Y. had a boyfriend who was older than she was, and Ms. Y.H. disapproved.

[10] After the argument commenced, Ms. Y.H. and J.Y. went upstairs and continued the argument in the master bedroom. Mr. H.R. followed them upstairs.

[11] While Ms. Y.H. and J.Y. were in the master bedroom, or perhaps the adjoining bathroom, Mr. H.R. testified that he overheard Ms. Y.H. telling J.Y. that she would call the police on J.Y.’s boyfriend and allege statutory rape. J.Y. responded that if Ms. Y.H. was going to do that she should also call the police regarding Mr. H.R.. J.Y. then walked out of the bedroom.

[12] After J.Y. left, Ms. Y.H. demanded to know “What is she talking about?” Mr. H.R. testified that he told Ms. Y.H. that he did not know what J.Y. was talking about. He said J.Y. called from down the hall that Mr. H.R. was touching her, to which he responded “no, that’s not true”.

[13] Mr. H.R. testified that Ms. Y.H. demanded that he swear on a bible, which he did, and he maintained that nothing like that ever happened.

[14] Mr. H.R. testified that similar accusations had been made in the past and he had always denied them. He said Ms. Y.H. had believed him in the past.

[15] Mr. H.R. testified that after swearing on the bible, Ms. Y.H. was still very upset. He suggested that they go outside for a walk. He testified that she then said “Okay, you know I’m going to call the police if you don’t admit something.”

[16] Mr. H.R. testified that after Ms. Y.H. made that statement, he said “okay I did touch her”, but he knew it was a lie but he told her anyway because he did not want the police to be called and he did not want to go to jail. He figured if he told her something then maybe she wouldn’t call the police.

[17] Mr. H.R. testified that he told Ms. Y.H. that he had touched J.Y. on her chest.

[18] After he made the admission, Ms. Y.H. became very upset and told him she wanted him to get out of the house that night. Ultimately, he did so.

[19] Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. called him on his cellphone a few days later. He said he knew right away that someone in the family had spoken to the pastor and told him something.

[20] Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. said he heard what had happened and Mr. H.R. told him that Y.H. and J.Y. were accusing him of touching J.Y.. He said it was not true. Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. said he had heard differently and needed Mr. H.R. to tell him the truth. Mr. H.R. told him nothing happened and Mr. L.M. suggested the police would need to be notified.

[21] Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. told him he needed to turn himself into the police, and if Mr. H.R. did not do so, then Pastor L.M. would have to call them.

[22] Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. then wanted him to tell him what happened. He testified that he told Pastor L.M. that he touched J.Y.’s chest. He thought if he didn’t tell him something he figured he was going to call the cops so he figured if he told him he touched J.Y., then maybe he would say come in for counselling and he would probably counsel Mr. H.R. a little bit and not call the police.

[23] When asked if he had any doubt that Pastor L.M. would call the police, Mr. H.R. testified that he had no doubt.

[24] Mr. H.R. testified that he made the admissions because Ms. Y.H. and Pastor L.M. had threatened to call the police if he did not.

[25] On cross-examination, Mr. H.R. confirmed that on August 4, 2011, during the heated discussions with Ms. Y.H., there were only two occasions during which the police were mentioned: in the bedroom, when it was suggested that the police would be called about J.Y.’s boyfriend; and later the same evening.

[26] It was put to Mr. H.R. that Ms. Y.H. had specifically asked him whether he had touched J.Y. on her breast and on her private areas. He testified that she might have, but he did not recall.

[27] Mr. H.R. testified that it was when he and Ms. Y.H. had gone outside the home that she said she would call the police.

[28] Mr. H.R. insisted that he did not meet with Pastor L.M. after receiving the call on his cellphone. He said he and Pastor L.M. had the entire discussion about the allegations on the phone.

[29] Mr. H.R. testified that Pastor L.M. first asked what he had done to J.Y.. He told him he had told Ms. Y.H. that he had touched J.Y. but it was not true, and he had told Ms. Y.H. that because she had threatened to call the police. When it was suggested he should turn himself into the police, he said he didn’t do anything. Pastor L.M. said that if Mr. H.R. didn’t do it, Pastor L.M. would.

[30] Mr. H.R. testified that after the discussion about calling the police, he continued to deny that anything had happened. His evidence was as follows:

Q. No. Okay. But he did tell you that he would have to call the police.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you had already indicated to him that you didn’t actually do anything. Right?

A. Right.

Q. And you had actually already indicated to him that you told Y.H. you did something, but you really didn’t. Right?

A. Right.

Q. And you continued in your conversation, yet you never admitted to, you never said to Pastor L.M. that you actually did touch J.Y.. Right?

A. Right.

Q. So you made it clear to Pastor L.M. that you never touched J.Y..

A. Right.

Q. And did you ever use, when you were speaking to Pastor L.M., did you ever use the word “fingered”?

A. No.

Q. And did you ever talk about any other allegations or any other kind of touching other than the lie you said you told to Y.H. about touching J.Y.’s breast?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any other recollection of if you talked about anything else with Pastor L.M. during that first conversation?

A. No. Well, as the conversation progressed, he said he would have to notify the police.

Q. Right. And did he explain to you why he would have to notify the police?

A. Because of what he had heard, he said “yes” he said yes, he told me that because of what he had heard, I’d have to either turn myself in or he would have to call the police.

Q. Did he, that was during your initial conversation?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he convey to you that he had a moral and legal obligation to contact the police?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you understood that, I take it?

A. Yes.

[31] Mr. H.R. testified that he had other conversations with Pastor L.M. after he had been contacted by the police. Those conversations were with respect to counselling that Pastor L.M. had recommended. Ultimately, Mr. H.R. was given the name and telephone number of a counsellor, but he never contacted the counsellor.

[32] Mr. H.R. also acknowledged that after he turned himself in to the police, he contacted Pastor L.M. to let him know. Pastor L.M. again asked about whether he had contacted a counsellor, and Mr. H.R. said no.

[33] Mr. H.R. confirmed the order in which the discussions about the allegations and calling the police had occurred. His evidence was as follows:

Q. Sir, you indicated earlier that he called you, he told you that he had heard what had happened, he asked you what happened, you said that they were alleging that you had touched J.Y. and that you had told Y.H. you touched J.Y. on the breast, but you didn’t, and you explained to him why you said that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then he made the comment about the police. Correct?

A. Said he would have to call them also, if I didn’t.

Q. Correct. And that’s the order that it happened in, that’s what you told us earlier. Correct?

A. Correct.

[34] Y.H. was called as a witness by the Crown. She said that on August 4, 2011, she was at home playing a family game at about 11:30 p.m. Her daughter J.Y. came home and an argument started about her dating an older boy. She thought the older boy might have been at the home earlier when Ms. Y.H. was at work.

[35] The argument proceeded upstairs in the bedroom. She, Mr. H.R., and J.Y. were in the bedroom. Ultimately, she and J.Y. were in the washroom and Mr. H.R. was on the bed.

[36] Ms. Y.H. accused J.Y. of having her boyfriend in the house and said if that had been the case, she would call the police. J.Y. said “if you do, I’ll tell the police what your husband did to me”, or words to that effect. Ms. Y.H. testified that Mr. H.R. at that point had his face buried in a pillow.

[37] Ms. Y.H. testified that she asked Mr. H.R. what J.Y. was talking about. She asked him if he had ever touched J.Y., to which he said no. Ms. Y.H. demanded that he swear on a bible, which he did. She told Mr. H.R. “I’m calling the police. J.Y. will say what she needs to say.” Mr. H.R. continued to deny that he had touched her.

[38] Ms. Y.H. testified that she asked Mr. H.R. whether he had touched specific parts of J.Y.’s body. She asked if he had touched J.Y.’s breast, to which Mr. H.R. said yes. She asked whether J.Y. had her shirt off, to which Mr. H.R. said yes. She asked whether J.Y. had her bra on, to which Mr. H.R. said no. She asked whether he had touched J.Y.’s private parts, to which Mr. H.R. said no.

[39] Ms. Y.H. testified that she told Mr. H.R. that she wanted a divorce. She said she saw a note on J.Y.’s door, which mentioned her “last will and testament”. She said she spoke to J.Y. again, who confirmed that there had been touching by Mr. H.R. and that Mr. H.R. had watched her shower.

[40] Ms. Y.H. said she found Mr. H.R. asleep in the bedroom, and she demanded that they go outside. Mr. H.R. asked if it could wait until the morning, to which she said no.

[41] Ms. Y.H. said that they went outside, around a bend in the road, where she confronted him again. She testified that Mr. H.R. said he was sorry, that he needed help, and asked if he could stay if he got help, to which she said no. He should have thought of that before.

[42] Ms. Y.H. testified that after Mr. H.R. left, he came back at the end of the weekend and repeated the same apology and said he would get help. He said he had nowhere to go. This did not change Ms. Y.H.’s mind.

[43] Ms. Y.H. confirmed that there was no other discussion of the police after the police had been mentioned in the bedroom in the context of their being notified of a potential statutory rape by J.Y.’s boyfriend, and the suggestion that if the police were called J.Y. would say what she had to say about Mr. H.R..

[44] Ms. Y.H. contacted the police about one week after the events and she made a statement. On cross-examination, Ms. Y.H. confirmed that she did not call the police for about 8 days.

[45] Pastor L.M. was called as a witness by the Crown. He established the L[…] Church in 2001. He knows the entire family very well. One family member, Garfield, is a close friend.

[46] Pastor L.M. testified that in July or August 2011, he received a telephone call from S.H., Y.H.’s mother. He said she was concerned about Mr. H.R.’s inappropriate behaviour towards his stepdaughter, which was of a sexual nature. He said no details were provided.

[47] Pastor L.M. testified that he called Y.H. and arranged to meet her at her home the next day. When he attended at the home, Ms. Y.H. was there with her mother, one of her sisters, and Garfield. He said there were no specifics of the allegations against Mr. H.R., but he got a general idea. He said he told Ms. Y.H. that this would be a police matter. He said they prayed.

[48] Pastor L.M. testified that he called Mr. H.R. on his cellphone and asked to meet him the next day. He said there were some allegations made against him, and he wanted to talk to Mr. H.R. at the church. He made arrangements for Mr. H.R. to attend at the church in the evening.

[49] Pastor L.M. testified that Mr. H.R. came to the church and met Pastor L.M. in his office. Pastor L.M. asked what had happened. He said Mr. H.R. looked sad, and shook his shoulder, and said he had done some “fingering” of J.Y.. Pastor L.M. said it was a serious matter, and later said the police would have to be involved. Mr. H.R. said he was sorry, he was repentant, and he was remorseful.

[50] Pastor L.M. testified that he was concerned for Mr. H.R.’s spiritual wellbeing. He said he wanted to offer counselling to Mr. H.R., but that he could not do it himself. He said he was willing to arrange it. He said he told Mr. H.R. that this was a legal matter, and the police would have to be involved. He said Mr. H.R. nodded his head and was mostly silent.

[51] Pastor L.M. testified that Mr. H.R. did not say he had made any admissions to Ms. Y.H..

[52] Pastor L.M. testified that Ms. Y.H.’s mother telephoned him shortly after he had met with Mr. H.R.. He was advised that Ms. Y.H. had gone to the police.

[53] Pastor L.M. testified that he called Mr. H.R. on his cellphone to follow up on his suggestion respecting counselling, and to advise him to voluntarily report to the police. He testified that he told Mr. H.R. that if Mr. H.R. did not report to the police, Pastor L.M. would report the matter. He testified that he was contacted later by Mr. H.R., who told him he had gone to the police with a lawyer. When asked whether he had sought out a counsellor, Mr. H.R. said no.

[54] Pastor L.M. testified that on August 19, 2011, he gave Mr. H.R. the name and telephone number of a counsellor, by sending Mr. H.R. a text message.

[55] Pastor L.M. testified that he called Mr. H.R. three or four more times. He wanted to meet him again to discuss his spiritual wellbeing but never got the opportunity. He testified that the church will pay for counselling if an adherent cannot afford it.

[56] On cross-examination, Pastor L.M. confirmed that the first time he had been contacted by the police was on January 27, 2014. He said he had notes of his meeting with Mr. H.R., but could not find them.

[57] It was specifically put to Pastor L.M. that Mr. H.R. made an admission after Pastor L.M. had mentioned the police. Pastor L.M. denied it.

[58] J.Y. was called as a reply witness by counsel for Mr. H.R.. She made a statement on August 12, 2011.

[59] Ms. J.Y. testified that there was an argument on August 4, 2011, based on the fact that her mother did not want her seeing her boyfriend. She said her mother threatened to call the police and have her boyfriend charged. Ms J.Y. testified that she said “If you charge him with statutory rape I can charge your husband and send him to jail” or words to that effect. She testified that Mr. H.R. did not say anything.

[60] Ms. J.Y. testified that her mother told her later that she had asked Mr. H.R. what J.Y. meant, and after a while Mr. H.R. admitted touching her breast. She said her mother told Mr. H.R. he had to swear on a bible or that he would have to leave or “something like that”. She said her mother didn’t go into details.

Analysis

[61] Ordinarily, one thinks of a person in authority as a police officer or something equivalent. However, it is clear that the concept of person in authority is much broader. It can include virtually anyone, provided certain criteria are met.

[62] The leading case in which those criteria are discussed is R. v. Hodgson, 1998 798 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449. The majority judgment was delivered by Cory J., speaking for himself and six other judges.

[63] The trial judge had admitted into evidence certain statements allegedly made by the accused to the complainant and her parents.

[64] One of the issues considered by the court was whether it should be necessary to prove voluntariness only if statements are made to persons in authority. In other words, the court considered whether any statement made, no matter to whom it is made, must be proven to be voluntary. The court answered that question in the negative.

[65] At para. 29, Cory J. stated:

The confessions rule, including the burden on the Crown to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, is carefully calibrated to ensure that the coercive power of the state is held in check and to preserve the principle against self-incrimination. The elimination of the person in authority requirement would represent a fundamental change to the confessions rule, and a significant change to the common law which could bring about complex and unforeseeable consequences for the administration of justice.

[66] At para. 32, Cory J. noted that “person in authority” typically refers to those persons formally engaged in the arrest, detention, examination or prosecution of the accused. However he said that it may take on a broader meaning. He stated:

Thus, from its earliest inception in Canadian law, the question as to who should be considered as a person in authority depended on the extent to which the accused believed the person could influence or control the proceedings against him or her. The question is therefore approached from the viewpoint of the accused.

[67] At para. 33, Cory J. referred with approval to the following statement by McIntyre J.A. (as he then was) in R. v. Berger (1975), 1975 1250 (BC CA), 27 C.C.C. (2d) 357 (B.C.C.A.), in which McIntyre J.A. set out a subjective test:

The law is settled that a person in authority is a person concerned with the prosecution who, in the opinion of the accused, can influence the course of the prosecution. The test to be applied in deciding whether statements made to persons connected in such a way with the prosecution are voluntary is subjective. In other words what did the accused think? Whom did he think he was talking to? …Was he under the impression that the failure to speak to this person, because of his power to influence the prosecution, would result in prejudice or did he think that a statement would draw some benefit or reward? If his mind was free of such impression the person receiving this statement would not be considered a person in authority and the statement would be admissible.

[68] In the next paragraph, Cory J. added important qualifiers to the subjective test. In words that have significance here, he stated:

However, to this statement I would add that the accused’s belief that he is speaking to a person in authority must also be reasonable, in the context of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement. If the accused were delusional or had no reasonable basis for the belief that the receiver of the statement could affect the course of the prosecution against him, the receiver should not be considered a person in authority. Since the person in authority requirement is aimed at controlling coercive state conduct, the test for a person in authority should not include those whom the accused unreasonably believes to be acting on behalf of the state. Thus, where the accused speaks out of fear of reprisal or hope of advantage because he reasonably believes the person receiving the statement is acting as an agent of the police or prosecuting authorities and could therefore influence or control the proceedings against him or her, then the receiver of the statement is properly considered a person in authority. In other words, the evidence must disclose not only that the accused subjectively believed the receiver of the statement to be in a position to control the proceedings against the accused, but must also an objectively reasonable basis for that belief. For example, if the evidence discloses a relationship of agency or close collaboration between the receiver of the statement and the police or prosecution, and that relationship was known to the accused, the receiver of the statement may be considered a person in authority. In those circumstances the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily.

[Emphasis added]

[69] It seems clear, in my view, that the objective part of the test involves an analysis of whether the accused has a reasonable belief that the person receiving the statement is acting as an agent of the police or prosecuting authorities. Part of the basis for this requirement is, as noted by Cory J., that the person in authority requirement is aimed at controlling coercive state conduct. Clearly, if the accused believes that the recipient of the statement is acting on his or her own, there cannot be any suggestion that something that person does or says is in furtherance of coercive state conduct. That is why, in my view, Cory J. was careful to say that the evidence must disclose a relationship of agency or close collaboration between the receiver of the statement and the police or prosecution, and that that relationship was known to the accused.

[70] At para. 36, Cory J. reaffirmed this notion where he said “That is to say, the trial judge must determine whether the accused reasonably believed the receiver of the statement was acting on behalf of the police or prosecuting authorities”, and at para. 39, he stated:

The receiver’s status as a person in authority arises only if the accused had knowledge of that status. If the accused cannot show that he or she had knowledge of the receiver’s status (as, for example, in the case of an undercover police officer) or close relationship to the authorities (as in the case of person acting on the behalf of the state), the inquiry pertaining to the receiver as a person in authority must end.

[71] In my view, subsequent cases must be assessed in light of the principles reviewed by Cory J. in Hodgson. Critical to a finding that the recipient of a statement is a person in authority is knowledge on the part of the accused that that person had a close relationship to the authorities or was acting as an agent of the authorities. The statements “I will call the police if you do not tell me”, or even “I will not call the police if you tell me” are not enough. By themselves, such statements do not imply that the recipient is acting on behalf of the police or prosecuting authorities. While it is true that the accused may believe that the recipient of a statement will not go to the police if a statement is made, the police may nevertheless find out about the alleged offence in other ways. Objectively, there is no reason to believe that the recipient of the statement is an agent of the police.

[72] This approach was adopted by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Glessman (2013), 2013 ABCA 86, 296 C.C.C. (3d) 131 (Alta. C.A.).

[73] In Glessman, the accused was charged with sexual assault. He made certain statements to the complainant and to her boyfriend. Both the complainant and the boyfriend were present when the statements were made. During the second conversation, the boyfriend threatened the accused by telling him “he was guilty and that he was going to go to jail, and that his only way…for [the complainant] not to press charges was for him to apologize.” Eventually, the accused apologized to the complainant.

[74] The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the accused were not made to persons in authority. At para. 9, the Court referred to the passages from Hodgson to which I referred earlier. At para. 11, the Court stated:

While the appellant may have believed that the complainant had the ability to influence the proceedings against him, in the sense that she could decline to report the incident to the police and ensure that proceedings were never initiated, there was no indication that the appellant believed the complainant was connected to the police or the prosecution.

[75] To the extent that the analysis in R. v. Harrison (2007), 2007 38395 (ON SC), 52 C.R. (6th) 333 (Ont. S.C.J.) differs from the analysis in Hodgson and Glessman, it is not persuasive. I am bound by Hodgson. In any event, the case was decided six years before Glessman, and it may well be that the judge who heard Harrison may have decided it differently had Glessman been available to him.

[76] I turn, then, to the facts of this case. Not only is there no objective evidence that Mr. H.R. reasonably believed that the recipients of the statements were agents of the police, there is no subjective evidence either. At its highest, Mr. H.R. testified that he hoped Ms. Y.H. and Pastor L.M. would not go to the police if he made the statements he said he made. At no time did he say he thought either Ms. Y.H. or Pastor L.M. were acting as agents of the police or the prosecuting authorities. As stated by Cory J. at para. 39 of Hodgson, the accused must show that he had knowledge of the receiver’s status or his or her close relationship to the authorities. Mr. H.R. did not do so. Thus, as held by Cory J., the inquiry pertaining to the receiver as a person in authority must end.

[77] It should be emphasised that I have made this determination based on the best case put forward by Mr. H.R. in his evidence, that is, that he made incriminating statements to Ms. Y.H. and Pastor L.M., after he had been told that the police would be called if he did not make the statements.

[78] Notwithstanding, I think there are difficulties with Mr. H.R.’s version of the events.

[79] Ms. Y.H. made it clear that the discussion of the police in the bedroom preceded any admissions Mr. H.R. made. Ms. Y.H. stated that she would call the police about J.Y.’s boyfriend. J.Y. said that if that was the case, she would say something about Mr. H.R.. The statement about calling the police, at that point, was not conditional. The police were going to be called, and something might then be said about Mr. H.R..

[80] Mr. H.R. made some admissions after the discussion in the bedroom. If Ms. Y.H.’s evidence is accepted, it would be difficult for Mr. H.R. to contend that those admissions were made as a result of any implied holding out that the police would not be called if he made the admissions. I think Ms. Y.H.’s version is more logical than Mr. H.R.’s.

[81] As for the alleged admissions to Pastor L.M., it is highly doubtful, according to Mr. H.R.’s evidence on cross-examination, that he actually made any admission. At most, according to him, he repeated the admissions that he made to Ms. Y.H., but insisted they were false. I reviewed Mr. H.R.’s evidence to that effect on cross-examination earlier.

[82] Notwithstanding these observations, at this point I am only called upon to address the question of whether any statements made by Mr. H.R. were made to persons in authority. For the reasons articulated, I am satisfied that any statements he made were not made to persons in authority. Accordingly, the statements are admissible in evidence.

[83] In view of my ruling, it is unnecessary to address Mr. Bernstein’s alternative argument that the derivative confessions rule would render the statements made to Pastor L.M. inadmissible even if it were found that Pastor L.M. is not a person in authority.

Gray J.

Released: September 26, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: 212/12
DATE: 2014-09-26

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

H.R.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY J.

Released: September 26, 2014