R. v. D.M.D.

R. v. D.M.D.

Acquittal: Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused touched the complainant for a sexual purpose because reasonable doubt arose from (1) the accused's plausible denial and explanatory testimony and (2) reliability defects in the complainant's account — inconsistencies about the nature and location of touching, clothing, potential contamination by prior poor interview technique and suggestibility, and lack of precision for a single brief incident.

Citation
2019 BCSC 1523
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: D.M.D.; Complainant: E.J.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Interference (s.151 Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Not guilty (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Sexual Interference, Credibility and Reliability of Child Witness, W.(d.) Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Framework, Admissibility Under S.715.1 Criminal Code, Interviewing Techniques and Suggestibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Child Witness Evidence Evidence Sexual Interference Credibility and Reliability of Child Witness W.(d.) Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Framework Admissibility Under S.715.1 Criminal Code Interviewing Techniques and Suggestibility

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

D.M.D.

Accused

E.J.M.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Interference (s.151 Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused touched the complainant for a sexual purpose
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's evidence is credible and sufficiently reliable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether family members influenced the complainant's statement

Ratio Decidendi

Acquittal: Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused touched the complainant for a sexual purpose because reasonable doubt arose from (1) the accused's plausible denial and explanatory testimony and (2) reliability defects in the complainant's account — inconsistencies about the nature and location of touching, clothing, potential contamination by prior poor interview technique and suggestibility, and lack of precision for a single brief incident.

Court Disposition

Not guilty (acquitted)

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of touching a person under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose (s.151 Criminal Code)
  • Restriction on publication pursuant to s.486.4(1) Criminal Code