R. v. C.J.H.

R. v. C.J.H.

The Crown did not prove the alleged incidents beyond a reasonable doubt because material and non-peripheral inconsistencies between the complainant's police statement and trial testimony, signs that parts of her testimony were reconstructed, and the unreliability of witness E.H. undermined confidence in the Crown's version of events while the accused's denial was unimpeached, leaving reasonable doubt and requiring acquittal.

Citation
2023 BCSC 441
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: C.J.H.; Complainant: C.M.; Witness: E.H.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Not guilty on both counts
Legal Topics
Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility of Child Witnesses, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Evidence Law Sexual Interference Invitation to Sexual Touching Reasonable Doubt Credibility of Child Witnesses +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

C.J.H.

Accused

C.M.

Complainant

E.H.

Witness

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Assessment of credibility and reliability of the complainant (child) and the accused
  3. 3 Reliability of witness E.H. and effect of inconsistencies and delay in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove the alleged incidents beyond a reasonable doubt because material and non-peripheral inconsistencies between the complainant's police statement and trial testimony, signs that parts of her testimony were reconstructed, and the unreliability of witness E.H. undermined confidence in the Crown's version of events while the accused's denial was unimpeached, leaving reasonable doubt and requiring acquittal.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both counts

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on both counts of the indictment (sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching)
  • Publication ban under s.486.4 of the Criminal Code restricting publication, broadcasting or transmission of evidence identifying the complainant or witness remains in force indefinitely