R. v. H, J.L.A.
The trial judge’s factual finding that police did not have reasonable grounds to believe the appellant committed the arson (and therefore s.56(2) did not apply) was reasonably supported by the evidence; the trial judge also properly assessed motive and the credibility of the witness including prior inconsistent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C30727
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: J. L. A. H., a Young Offender
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (young Offender) / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
- Legal Topics
- Young Offenders Act S.56(2), Credibility and Prior Inconsistent Statements, Motive, Appellate Standard of Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
J. L. A. H., a Young Offender
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (young Offender) / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.56(2) Young Offenders Act protections applied because officers had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant committed the offence
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in his treatment of evidence of motive regarding Mr. McNamara and Mrs. Proulx
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the credibility of witness Richard R. RaymoR., including prior inconsistent statements
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge’s factual finding that police did not have reasonable grounds to believe the appellant committed the arson (and therefore s.56(2) did not apply) was reasonably supported by the evidence; the trial judge also properly assessed motive and the credibility of the witness including prior inconsistent statements, and no reversible error was shown, so the conviction stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Orders
- Appeal from conviction dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. H, J.L.A. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-09-22 Docket numbers C30727 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Finlayson, George Duncan; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990922 DOCKET: C30727 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. J. L. A. H., a Young Offender (Appellant) BEFORE: BROOKE, FINLAYSON and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Eric D. McCooeye, for the appellant Tina Yuen, for the respondent HEARD: August 19 and 20, 1999 On appeal from his conviction by His Honour Judge W. G. Mahaffy, on June 11, 1998 ENDORSEMENT [1] Of the several grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in his factum, we need only deal with the three dealt with in oral argument. [2] The trial judge found as a fact that while the officers believed the appellant might somehow be involved in the arson, they did not have reasonable grounds to believe he had committed the offence. Accordingly, the trial judge held that the added protections in s. 56(2) of the Young Offenders Act R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 did not apply. This finding is reasonably supported by the evidence and we see no basis for interfering with it. [3] We see no error by the trial judge in his appreciation of the evidence concerning motive on the part of Mr. McNamara M. and Mrs. ProulxP.. Both issues were appropriately addressed by the trial judge in his reasons. [4] The trial judge was conscious of the frailties in Richard R. RaymoR.'s evidence, including all the prior inconsistent statements, which were placed before him. Again, we see no reversible error in the treatment of that evidence. [5] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.