R. v. Kavanagh

R. v. Kavanagh

The accused was found guilty because the court accepted WM as a credible witness and found his account corroborated by multiple independent indicators (Facebook messages showing grooming and control, CCTV of building entries, eyewitness evidence of the accused holding WM out as 'uncle' and having him in his room, observed fresh needle mark and WM's dramatic deterioration), and because WM was under 16 and thus legally incapable of consent under s.150.1(1).

Citation
2018 BCSC 1118
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Charles Michael Kavanagh
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Assault, Trafficking, Breach of Recognizance) / Trial Judgment (convicted)
Outcome
Convicted on all counts (Count 1 sexual assault; Count 2 trafficking cannabis; Count 3 trafficking methamphetamine; Count 4 breach of s.810.1 recognizance)
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Grooming, Trafficking, Recognizance Breach, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Child Protection Controlled Substances Law Evidence Sexual Assault Grooming Trafficking Recognizance Breach +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Charles Michael Kavanagh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Assault, Trafficking, Breach of Recognizance) / Trial Judgment (convicted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted WM
  2. 2 Whether WM's evidence was credible and corroborated
  3. 3 Application of s.150.1(1) incapacity of persons under 16 to consent

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was found guilty because the court accepted WM as a credible witness and found his account corroborated by multiple independent indicators (Facebook messages showing grooming and control, CCTV of building entries, eyewitness evidence of the accused holding WM out as 'uncle' and having him in his room, observed fresh needle mark and WM's dramatic deterioration), and because WM was under 16 and thus legally incapable of consent under s.150.1(1).

Court Disposition

Convicted on all counts (Count 1 sexual assault; Count 2 trafficking cannabis; Count 3 trafficking methamphetamine; Count 4 breach of s.810.1 recognizance)

Orders

  • Convicted of Count 1: sexual assault contrary to s.151 Criminal Code
  • Convicted of Count 2: trafficking cannabis contrary to s.5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act