R. v. Camilleri
The Court dismissed the appeal because the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence despite credibility issues and the Court of Appeal will not overturn a verdict as unreasonable absent a clear basis; the sentencing judge acted within his discretion in imposing 15 months and properly rejected a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38837
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Paul Camilleri
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence to the Court of Appeal; Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed in its entirety; conviction and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Assault, Appeal Against Conviction, Sentencing, Credibility Assessment, Jury Verdict Unreasonableness, Conditional Sentence
- 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
Paul Camilleri
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence to the Court of Appeal; Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the jury verdict was unreasonable and should be quashed on appellate review
- 2 Whether the 15‑month custodial sentence was fit and whether a conditional sentence was appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence despite credibility issues and the Court of Appeal will not overturn a verdict as unreasonable absent a clear basis; the sentencing judge acted within his discretion in imposing 15 months and properly rejected a conditional sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed in its entirety; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- Appeal from conviction dismissed
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Camilleri Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-06-16 Docket numbers C38837 Judges Doherty, David H.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20030616 DOCKET: C38837 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. PAUL CAMILLERI (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, ARMSTRONG JJ.A. and BLAIR R.S.J. ad hoc COUNSEL: Irwin Koziebrocki for the appellant Amy Alyea for the respondent HEARD: June 12, 2003 RELEASED ORALLY: June 12, 2003 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice B. Smith, sitting with a jury, on May 9, 2002 and the sentence imposed on September 13, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting a young foster girl in his care over about a 2 year period when the girl was eight or nine years old. According to the complainant, the appellant regularly came to her bedroom shortly after she went to bed and fondled her breasts and vagina. The molestation escalated to digital penetration of the vagina. [2] The appellant testified and denied the assaults. His wife and brother-in-law gave evidence in support of his defence. [3] This was a straightforward case. The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's evidence. There were difficulties with her credibility, including her failure to disclose the alleged assaults for a considerable period of time during which she was attending sexual abuse educational classes. These difficulties with the complainant's credibility were fully canvassed in the closing addresses of counsel and the charge to the jury. The appellant does not take issue with the charge. [4] Counsel framed various grounds of appeal in his factum, however, they all come down to the submission that the verdict is unreasonable. The limited scope of appellate review when it is alleged that the verdict is unreasonable is well established. Appellate courts must be particularly careful in assessing credibility from the far off distance of the Court of Appeal. Bearing in mind the limited scope of our review, we see no basis upon which to interfere with the jury's verdict. [5] The appellant also appeals the sentence imposed of 15 months. We see no error in principle in the sentence imposed. Given the nature of the offence for which the appellant was convicted, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion in favour of incarceration. He did consider a conditional sentence, but determined that it was not appropriate in the circumstances. [6] The appeal from conviction is dismissed. Leave to appeal the sentence is granted and the appeal is dismissed. "Doherty J.A." "Armstrong J.A." "R.A. Blair R.S.J. (ad hoc)"