R. v. D.F.

R. v. D.F.

Although the complainant was credible on core allegations, the Crown did not discharge its burden beyond a reasonable doubt because significant implausibilities and gaps (including inconsistency about where a key parental conversation occurred, the risky and unlikely opportunity for prolonged sexual touching given the room layout and presence of others, lack of detail about how the touching was physically effected, and concerns about tailoring and unreliability in the accused's evidence) left a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred as alleged.

Citation
2020 BCSC 2215
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: D.F.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Interference / Trial Judgment (judge Alone) Acquittal
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Sexual Interference, Credibility Assessment, Reasonable Doubt, Child Witness Evidence, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sexual Interference Credibility Assessment Reasonable Doubt Child Witness Evidence Publication Ban

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

D.F.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Interference / Trial Judgment (judge Alone) Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused touched the complainant for a sexual purpose contrary to s.151 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Assessment of credibility and reliability of complainant and accused testimony in a he-said/he-said context
  3. 3 Application of W.(D.) principles and reasonable doubt framework

Ratio Decidendi

Although the complainant was credible on core allegations, the Crown did not discharge its burden beyond a reasonable doubt because significant implausibilities and gaps (including inconsistency about where a key parental conversation occurred, the risky and unlikely opportunity for prolonged sexual touching given the room layout and presence of others, lack of detail about how the touching was physically effected, and concerns about tailoring and unreliability in the accused's evidence) left a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred as alleged.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charge under s.151 Criminal Code
  • Publication ban imposed under s.486.4 Criminal Code restricting identification of complainant and witnesses (indefinite)