Regina v. T.R.R.

Regina v. T.R.R.

The trial judge accepted the child and mother's testimony as credible, found the accusedÕs admissions to police corroborated material aspects of the childÕs account, deemed peripheral inconsistencies immaterial given age and context, and concluded the Crown proved each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 BCSC 708
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: T.R.R.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused convicted on all four counts.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Child Testimony, Credibility Assessment, Confessions, Publication Ban
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Law Child Protection Sexual Assault Sexual Interference Invitation to Sexual Touching Child Testimony +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

T.R.R.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child and adult complainants were credible
  2. 2 Whether the accused's admissions to police were reliable and probative
  3. 3 Whether inconsistencies in testimony were peripheral or undermined the prosecutions case

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge accepted the child and mother's testimony as credible, found the accusedÕs admissions to police corroborated material aspects of the childÕs account, deemed peripheral inconsistencies immaterial given age and context, and concluded the Crown proved each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all four counts.

Orders

  • Convicted on counts one to four of the indictment
  • Publication ban in force prohibiting any information that could identify either complainant pursuant to s.486(3) Criminal Code