R. v. D.

R. v. D.

The court accepted the mother's credible timeline that the child was neurologically normal before the defendant's brief care, accepted medical expert evidence that the pattern of injuries (skull fracture plus diffuse subdural bleeding and retinal haemorrhages) is inconsistent with ordinary household falls and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1563
Parties
Crown: Regina; Defendant: D.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (aggravated Assault) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Guilty of aggravated assault (s.268(2) Criminal Code)
Legal Topics
Aggravated Assault, Circumstantial Evidence, Expert Medical Opinion, Child Abuse, Timing of Injury
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Child Protection Medical Evidence Forensic Evidence Aggravated Assault Circumstantial Evidence Expert Medical Opinion Child Abuse +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

D.D.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (aggravated Assault) / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child's injuries occurred during the period the defendant had the child in his care
  2. 2 Whether the injuries were caused by the defendant rather than by an accidental fall or other mishap

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the mother's credible timeline that the child was neurologically normal before the defendant's brief care, accepted medical expert evidence that the pattern of injuries (skull fracture plus diffuse subdural bleeding and retinal haemorrhages) is inconsistent with ordinary household falls and requires human blunt impact plus acceleration/deceleration forces, rejected the defendant's inconsistent account, and concluded that the only rational inference beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant assaulted the child.

Court Disposition

Guilty of aggravated assault (s.268(2) Criminal Code)