R. v. G.D.M.

R. v. G.D.M.

The judge found irreconcilable and significant credibility conflicts between the complainant and the accused, was unable to conclude whom to believe, and applying the W.D. principles concluded the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 NSSC 72
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: G.D.M.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted (not guilty)
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Credibility Assessment, Publication Ban, Alibi, Narrative Exception, Standard of Proof (beyond Reasonable Doubt)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sexual Assault Credibility Assessment Publication Ban Alibi Narrative Exception +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

G.D.M.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (acquittal)

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual offences under sections 151, 152 and 271 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Assessment of conflicting credibility evidence of complainant and accused
  3. 3 Application of W.D. (R. v. W. (D)) acquittal tests in cases of credibility conflict

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found irreconcilable and significant credibility conflicts between the complainant and the accused, was unable to conclude whom to believe, and applying the W.D. principles concluded the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted (not guilty)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of all charges
  • Publication ban under Criminal Code s.486.4(1)(2) remains in effect