R. v. J.L.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that M. had generally adopted his police statement and that the appellant's absconding warranted some weight were open on the evidence and not erroneous; there was no basis for appellate intervention.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 828
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Appellant: J.L.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 December 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal (youth Criminal Justice Act) / Appeal to Court of Appeal (from Ontario Court of Justice)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Identity Publication Prohibition, Identification Evidence, Absconding as Factor in Credibility, Weight of Evidence
- 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.
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal (youth Criminal Justice Act) / Appeal to Court of Appeal (from Ontario Court of Justice)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing witness M.'s credibility and adoption of his police statement
- 2 Whether the identification evidence was sufficient to support the conviction
- 3 Whether the appellant's absconding could be given weight by the trial judge
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that M. had generally adopted his police statement and that the appellant's absconding warranted some weight were open on the evidence and not erroneous; there was no basis for appellate intervention.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. J.L. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-12-10 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 828 Docket numbers C44709 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Blair, Robert Ashley; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO: 110. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act… 111. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person. 138. (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. CITATION: R. v. J.L., 2008 ONCA 828 DATE: 20081205 DOCKET: C44709 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and J.L. Appellant Jonathan Bliss for the appellant Peter Scrutton for the respondent Heard: December 4, 2008 On appeal from the judgment of Justice William P. Bassel of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 29, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that M. had generally adopted the truth of his statement to the police identifying the appellant as one of the participants in the two robberies. The trial judge also found that while at times, in his evidence M. attempted to back away from his identification of the appellant, in the end, he did not dispute that he had told the police the truth. These findings, in our view, were available on the evidence and we see no error. Nor do we agree that the trial judge erred in giving some weight to the fact that the appellant had absconded during the trial. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.