Following a judge-alone trial on historical sexual offence charges involving two complainants, the court first addressed the admissibility of one complainant’s police statement and preliminary hearing testimony after she refused to complete cross-examination due to acute psychological distress.
Applying the principled hearsay exception and authorities dealing with unresponsive complainants, the court admitted the prior statements to preserve trial fairness and permit assessment of credibility through prior inconsistent accounts.
On the merits, the court found both complainants’ evidence contained significant and material inconsistencies going to the heart of the allegations.
The Crown failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all six charges.
