T. David

The accused, charged with sexual assault, sought to confirm his right to a trial by judge and jury.

The Crown argued that the accused must be tried by judge alone because the Crown had not expressly consented to the accused's re-election to a jury trial at the assignment court.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the Crown's conduct at the assignment court, where the Crown Attorney actively participated in scheduling a jury trial without objection, constituted a clear and unequivocal waiver of the procedural requirement for express consent.

The court confirmed the accused's right to a trial by judge and jury.

The Crown applied to have the respondent designated a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for overcoming resistance by choking, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, forcible confinement, and sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the respondent constituted a threat to the public due to a pattern of repetitive, persistent, and aggressive behaviour, as well as a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Concluding that a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would not adequately protect the public, the court designated the respondent a Dangerous Offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The Crown sought to adduce a statement made by the accused to police after he turned himself in.

The accused had refused to be video or audio recorded but agreed to answer questions, which the officer noted down.

The defence opposed the admission of the statement, arguing it was involuntary due to the police's failure to video record the interview as required by appellate jurisprudence.

The court found that the police did not deliberately avoid recording the statement, but rather respected the accused's refusal to be recorded while answering questions.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary and admissible.